Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00726/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00726-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Frank Chang
Defendant
John Louis Spears
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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN LOUIS SPEARS,

Plaintiff,

v.

FRANK CHANG,

Defendant.

Case No.: 1:22-cv-00726 SKO (PC)

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO 

SHOW CAUSE

(Doc. 19)

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO 

PROVIDE SUFFICIENT INFORMATION 

TO EFFECTUATE SERVICE UPON 

DEFENDANT CHANG WITHIN 30 DAYS

Plaintiff John Louis Spears is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds solely on Plaintiff’s Eighth 

Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claim against Defendant Chang. 

I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND

The Court issued its Order Finding Service Appropriate on April 18, 2023, directing 

service of process on Defendant Frank Chang, M.D., at the Substance Abuse Treatment Facility 

(“SATF”) in Corcoran, California. (Doc. 14.) 

On May 30, 2023, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) 

filed a notice of intent to waive service as to Defendant Chang. (Doc. 16.) However, on June 5, 

2023, the CDCR filed an amended notice, advising the Court they attempted contact with Chang 

Case 1:22-cv-00726-KES-SKO Document 21 Filed 10/23/23 Page 1 of 5
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

at SATF, but failed to contact him. (Doc. 17.) A last known address was provided. (Id.) 

On September 15, 2023, the United States Marshall filed its USM-285 form indicating 

service could not be effected on Defendant Chang. (Doc. 18 at 1.) The United States Marshal was 

advised by the current resident of 161 W. Fairview Avenue in San Gabriel, California, that Chang 

has not resided at that address “as of March 2021.” (Id. at 2.) 

On September 18, 2023, the Court issued its Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) Why 

Defendant Chang Should Not Be Dismissed from this Action for Plaintiff’s Failure to Provide 

Sufficient Information to Effectuate Service. (Doc. 19.) 

On October 19, 2023, Plaintiff filed a response to the OSC. (Doc. 20.) 

II. DISCUSSION

In his response to the OSC, Plaintiff contends he has “provided the Court and U.S. 

Marshals information and location where defendant, Frank Chang, could [] be located for 

effective service.” (Doc. 20 at 2.) He states because he is incarcerated, pro se and proceeding in 

forma pauperis, he “has no other option but to rely upon the U.S. Marshal for service of summons 

and complaint.” (Id.) Plaintiff contends that due to his incarceration, he “has no access to the 

internet or social media to assist the U.S. Marshall and the Court to locate the defendant so that 

service can be completed.” (Id.) Plaintiff states Defendant Chang, as a doctor, “has a medical 

license and license number that the U.S. Marshal’s and Court can trace and find the defendant’s 

current address and place of employment.” (Id. at 2-3.) Plaintiff states Defendant Chang should 

have a driver’s license, “which if ran through the Department of Motor Vehicle(DMV) data base 

the defendant’s current address would be provided and the U.S. Marshal could effectuate 

service.” (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff contends Defendant Chang should not be dismissed from the action 

because Plaintiff “has provided the Court and the U.S. Marshal’s all of the information he had 

regarding” Defendant’s location. (Id.) Plaintiff asserts “Defendant either is currently or was an 

employee of Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation(CDCR), at the Substance Abuse 

Treatment Facility @ Corcoran, in California,” and that “CDCR should have and/or keep the 

home number or cellphone number of [their] employees in cases such as this.” (Id.) 

//

Case 1:22-cv-00726-KES-SKO Document 21 Filed 10/23/23 Page 2 of 5
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

As the Court previously stated, if a pro se plaintiff fails to provide the Marshal with 

accurate and sufficient information to effect service of the summons and complaint, dismissal of 

the unserved defendant is appropriate. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m); Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 

1421-22 (9th Cir. 1994), abrogated on other grounds by Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472 (1995). 

Here, the United States Marshal has attempted to serve Defendant Frank Chang without success.

(Doc. 19.) Plaintiff identified Defendant Chang as a physician employed at SATF on February 2, 

2017. (See Doc. 1 & Doc. 14 at 1.) The United States Marshal was advised by the CDCR that 

Chang could not be located at SATF. (Doc. 17.) CDCR provided a last known address for Chang: 

161 W. Fairview Avenue, in San Gabriel, California. (Id.) The United States Marshal then 

attempted personal service at Defendant Chang’s last known address. (Doc. 18.) Those efforts 

were unsuccessful because the Marshal was advised by the current occupant of the residence that 

Chang has not resided at that address for more than two years. (Id.) In sum, Plaintiff has failed to 

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

and Plaintiff’s complaint on Defendant Chang. Walker, 14 F.3d at 1421-22. 

Plaintiff is entitled to assistance in effecting service due to his status as an incarcerated pro 

se plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3). It is Plaintiff's burden, however,

to obtain sufficient information regarding defendants’ identities and current addresses to effect 

service of process. Puett v. Blandford, 92 F.2d 270, 275 (9th Cir. 1990) (in forma pauperis litigant 

is entitled to have process served by U.S. Marshal if litigant provides necessary information to 

help effectuate service). The United States Marshal has assisted Plaintiff; however, based upon 

the information provided by Plaintiff service could not be completed.

It is not the Marshal’s responsibility to locate Defendant Chang. See Howard v. Encinas, 

No. 1:18-cv-01710-DAD-EPG (PC), 2020 WL 2489634, *2 (E.D. Cal. May 14, 2020) (“As 

Plaintiff has failed to provide the Marshal with accurate and sufficient information to effect 

service of summons and complaint on defendant Leno and W. Hanna,” where the institution of 

confinement at the time of the incident reported neither “Leno” nor “W. Hanna” was employed at 

that institution, the Court recommended dismissal of those defendants) (recommendation adopted 

July 10, 2020, 2020 WL 3893633); Heredia v. Lawrence, No. 17cv1560-LAB (LL), 2019 WL 

Case 1:22-cv-00726-KES-SKO Document 21 Filed 10/23/23 Page 3 of 5
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

4

1330316, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 25, 2019) (plaintiff suggested burden of locating defendants 

should “be on the USMS or the Court” but it is plaintiff’s responsibility to provide the necessary 

information and the “USMS does its best to effect service as instructed, but it does not have the 

ability to track down every defendant named in a complaint if the information provided by the 

plaintiff is faulty”). Nor does that burden fall on or extend to the Court. See Heredia, 2019 WL 

1330316, at *2; Harbridge v. Hall, Lee, and Tucker, No. 1:10-cv-00473-DAD-JLT (PC), 2017 

WL 1821282, at *5 (E.D. Cal. May 5, 2017) (“Plaintiff argues that the Ninth Circuit should 

‘clearly carve out ... a new rule’ requiring district courts to order the U.S. Marshal to access the 

internet and public records to locate defendants who no longer work for the CDCR for purposes 

of service. Plaintiff has failed to come forward with any legal precedent for imposing such 

requirements on the U.S. Marshal and the court has found none. In addition, given the number of 

incarcerated plaintiffs who proceed pro se in this district, the court declines to impose such an 

overwhelming and additional burden on the U.S. Marshal”).

Further, the CDCR has already provided the last known address associated with 

Defendant Chang, and it is not CDCR’s obligation to provide more. See Lear v. Navarro, No. 

1:21-cv-00600-DAD-BAM (PC), 2022 WL 2819034, at *2 (E.D. Cal. July 19, 2022) (“as the 

Marshal has already attempted to serve Defendant Plata with the information that was provided, 

the Court finds that Plaintiff has not provided sufficient information to identify and locate 

Defendant Plata for service of process. To the extent Plaintiff requests that the Court order 

[CDCR] Defendants or defense counsel to provide such information directly to the Court, by 

order or by email, the Court declines to do so”); Steward v. Igbinosa, No. 1:18-cv-00551-AWIBAM (PC), 2021 WL 3488282, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2021) (it is not CDCR’s responsibility to 

provide the Court with updated contact information for the defendant; because plaintiff had “no 

other information that can be used to locate Defendant Nelson, and as the Marshal has already 

attempted to serve Defendant Nelson with the information provided, the Court finds that Plaintiff 

has not provided sufficient information to identify and locate Defendant Nelson for service of 

process”).

The Court will not order the United States Marshal or the CDCR to do more. Both entities 

Case 1:22-cv-00726-KES-SKO Document 21 Filed 10/23/23 Page 4 of 5
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

5

have attempted service based on the information that is Plaintiff’s burden to provide. While the 

Court understands Plaintiff is incarcerated and has limited access to information, that limitation 

does not shift the burden to the United States Marshal, CDCR, or this Court. 

Plaintiff will be provided one final opportunity to provide additional information that 

will assist the United States Marshal in locating Defendant Chang for service of process. If 

Plaintiff is unable to provide the United States Marshal with the necessary information to locate 

Defendant Chang, he will be dismissed from this action, without prejudice, pursuant to Rule 4 of 

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff SHALL provide the 

Court with additional information concerning Defendant Chang’s current location within 30 days

of the date of service of this order. 

Plaintiff is advised that a failure to provide sufficient information will result in a 

recommendation that Defendant Chang be dismissed, without prejudice, 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: October 20, 2023 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-00726-KES-SKO Document 21 Filed 10/23/23 Page 5 of 5