Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01387/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01387-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Marin
Defendant
Rios
Defendant
Salvador Gonzalez Verduzco
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SALVADOR GONZALEZ VERDUZCO,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MARIN, et al.,

 Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:14-cv-01387-BAM (PC)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 

DEFENDANTS MARIN AND RIOS 

SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FROM 

THIS ACTION FOR FAILURE TO 

PROVIDE SUFFICIENT INFORMATION 

TO EFFECTUATE SERVICE

(ECF No. 27)

THIRTY-DAY DEADLINE

I. Introduction

Plaintiff Salvador Gonzalez Verduzco (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and 

in forma pauperis, initiated this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on April 30, 

2014. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, filed on February 27, 2015, 

for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment against Defendants Marin and Rios.

II. Service by the United States Marshal

On March 23, 2015, following screening of the first amended complaint, the Court issued 

an order directing the United States Marshal to initiate service of process in this action upon 

Defendants Marin and Rios. (ECF No. 18.) On August 14, 2015, the United States Marshal 

Service returned both summons unexecuted. (ECF Nos. 22, 23.) The Marshal reported that the 

assistance of a special investigator was sought, but the special investigator was unable to identify 

Case 1:14-cv-01387-AWI-BAM Document 28 Filed 12/01/15 Page 1 of 3
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

either of the Defendants based on the information Plaintiff provided. (Id.) Subsequently, the 

Court ordered Plaintiff to provide information sufficient to enable service of process on the 

Defendants, (ECF No. 24), and Plaintiff responded with additional identifying information, (ECF 

No. 25). As a result, on September 18, 2015, the Court ordered the Marshal to attempt re-service 

on both Defendants with the additional information Plaintiff provided. (ECF No. 26). The 

Marshal complied, but on November 16, 2015, again returned both summons unexecuted. (ECF 

No. 27.) A special investigator was again unable to identify either Defendant Marin or Defendant 

Rios based on the additional information Plaintiff provided. (Id.)

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) provides as follows:

If a defendant is not served within 120 days after the complaint is filed, the 

court—on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the 

action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made 

within a specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the 

court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period.

Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m). In cases involving a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis, the Marshal, 

upon order of the court, shall serve the summons and the complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3). 

“[A]n incarcerated pro se plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis is entitled to rely on the U.S. 

Marshal for service of the summons and complaint, and . . . should not be penalized by having 

his or her action dismissed for failure to effect service where the U.S. Marshal or the court clerk 

has failed to perform the duties required of each of them . . . .” Puett v. Blandford, 912 F.2d 270, 

275 (9th Cir. 1990). “So long as the prisoner has furnished the information necessary to identify 

the defendant, the marshal’s failure to effect service is ‘automatically good cause . . . .’” Walker 

v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994), abrogated on other grounds by Sandin v. Connor, 

515 U.S. 472, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995). However, where a pro se plaintiff fails 

to provide the Marshal with accurate and sufficient information to effect service of the summons 

and complaint, the Court’s sua sponte dismissal of the unserved defendant is appropriate. 

Walker, 14 F.3d at 1421-22.

In this case, Plaintiff has not provided sufficient information to identify either Defendant 

Marin or Defendant Rios, or to locate these Defendants for service of process. If Plaintiff is 

Case 1:14-cv-01387-AWI-BAM Document 28 Filed 12/01/15 Page 2 of 3
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

unable to provide the Marshal with additional information, these Defendants shall be dismissed 

from this action, without prejudice. Furthermore, since Defendants Marin and Rios are the only 

Defendants in this action, if service cannot be effected on at least one of them, this action must 

be dismissed in its entirety.

Pursuant to Rule 4(m), the court will provide Plaintiff with the opportunity to show cause 

why Defendants Marin and Rios should not be dismissed from the action at this time.

III. Conclusion and Order

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall show 

cause why Defendants Marin and Rios should not be dismissed from this action; and

2. The failure to respond to this order or the failure to show cause will result in the 

dismissal of Defendants Marin and Rios, and thus the dismissal of this action, in its entirety.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 1, 2015 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01387-AWI-BAM Document 28 Filed 12/01/15 Page 3 of 3