Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00691/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-00691-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Alverez
Defendant
Cheek
Defendant
Okri
Defendant
Antwone Stokes
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTWONE STOKES,

Plaintiff,

v.

CHEEK, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:24-cv-00691-BAM (PC)

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY 

DEFENDANT OKRI SHOULD NOT BE 

DISMISSED FROM THIS ACTION FOR 

FAILURE TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT 

INFORMATION TO EFFECTUATE 

SERVICE

(ECF No. 20)

THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Antwone Stokes (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on 

Plaintiff’s first amended complaint against Defendants Cheek, Okri, and Alverez for failure to 

protect and denial of medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment.

On December 23, 2024, the Court issued an order directing service on Defendants under 

the Court’s E-Service pilot program for civil rights cases for the Eastern District of California. 

(ECF No. 20.) The order included the following information regarding Defendant Okri: “Mr. 

Okri, Nurse; NKSP; on or about May 28, 2024.” (Id. at 2.) On January 3, 2025, the Court 

received information that Defendant Okri could not be identified.

///

///

Case 1:24-cv-00691-BAM Document 24 Filed 01/06/25 Page 1 of 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

2

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 

(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.

Here, the U.S. Marshal attempted to electronically serve Defendant Okri with the 

information that Plaintiff provided. However, the Marshal was informed that there was not 

enough information to identify Defendant Okri for service of process, and there is no one in the 

CCHCS registry with this name. If Plaintiff is unable to provide the Marshal with the necessary 

information to identify and locate this defendant, Defendant Okri shall be dismissed from this 

action, without prejudice.

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

why Defendant Okri should not be dismissed from the action at this time. Plaintiff may respond 

to this order by providing additional information that will assist the Marshal in identifying 

Defendant Okri for service of process. For example, Plaintiff may provide the correct spelling of 

Case 1:24-cv-00691-BAM Document 24 Filed 01/06/25 Page 2 of 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

3

Defendant Okri’s name, an approximate time or shift when the incident took place, a building 

number or facility where the incident took place, or other identifying physical features for 

Defendant Okri.

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 Defendant Okri 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 any unidentified defendant from this action, due to Plaintiff’s failure to 

serve process pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 6, 2025 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-00691-BAM Document 24 Filed 01/06/25 Page 3 of 3