Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00992/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00992-18/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Chang
Defendant
Clemente
Defendant
Embrey
Defendant
Laird
Defendant
Richard Alan Lawson
Plaintiff
Sawaske
Defendant
Donald Youngblood
Defendant

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

RICHARD ALAN LAWSON, 

Plaintiff,

v.

DONALD YOUNGBLOOD, et al., 

Defendants.

Case No. 1:09-cv-00992-LJO-MJS (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION 

DISMISSING DEFENDANT CLEMENTE 

FOR INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO 

EFFECT SERVICE OF PROCESS

(ECF No. 87)

FOURTEEN-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 

civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter proceeds on the 

Second Amended Complaint claims of inadequate medical care by Defendants Laird, 

Chang, Sawaske, Embrey, and Clemente, and excessive force by Defendant Laird.

The United States Marshal was ordered to initiate service of process on January 

11, 2012. (ECF No. 26.) The Marshal could not locate Defendant Clemente for service,

and on September 17, 2012, returned summons unexecuted. (ECF No. 38.) On October 

29, 2012, the Court ordered the Marshal to again attempt service on Defendant 

Clemente. (ECF No. 53.) The Marshal, despite numerous attempts, was unable to 

locate Clemente. The summons on re-service was returned unexecuted on May 12, 

2014. (ECF No. 86.) 

Case 1:09-cv-00992-LJO-MJS Document 90 Filed 06/27/14 Page 1 of 4
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

On May 19, 2014, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why Defendant 

Clemente should not be dismissed due to the absence of sufficient information to effect 

service of process. (ECF No. 87.) 

Plaintiff responded that he does not have any additional service information, that 

it should be the obligation of defense counsel to provide such information, and that 

Defendant Clemente in any event answered the complaint. (ECF No. 88.) 

In cases involving a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis, the Marshal, upon 

order of the Court, shall serve the summons and the complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3). However, Rule 4(m) provides that:

[i]f 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.

“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), quoting Puett v. Blandford, 912 

F.2d 270, 275 (9th Cir. 1990), abrogated on other grounds by Sandin v. Connor, 515 

U.S. 472 (1995). 

Despite Plaintiff presumably having provided all information he has regarding 

Defendant Clemente and his whereabouts, the Marshal has been unable on repeated 

attempts to effect service of process upon him. Absent additional information about said 

Defendant’s whereabouts, further attempts at service would be futile, and it appears that 

no further information will be forthcoming.

Plaintiff does not offer a sufficient explanation of why he has not and can not 

Case 1:09-cv-00992-LJO-MJS Document 90 Filed 06/27/14 Page 2 of 4
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

provide information sufficient to effect service of process upon Defendant Clemente. 

The obligation to do so is on Plaintiff, not Defendants. Walker, 14 F.3d at 1422. 

Contrary to Plaintiff’s claim, Defendant Clemente has not appeared in this action 

by answer or otherwise. 

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(s) is appropriate. Walker, 14 F.3d at 1421-22. 

Accordingly, for the reasons stated the undersigned finds that the avenues 

available to locate and serve Defendant Clemente have been exhausted, and 

recommends that Defendant Clemente be dismissed from this action without prejudice. 

These Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States 

District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(l). Within fourteen (14) days after being served with these Findings and 

Recommendation, the parties may file written objections with the Court. The document 

should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” 

A party may respond to another party’s objections by filing a response within fourteen 

(14) days after being served with a copy of that party’s objections. The parties are 

advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to 

appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 26, 2014 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00992-LJO-MJS Document 90 Filed 06/27/14 Page 3 of 4
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

Case 1:09-cv-00992-LJO-MJS Document 90 Filed 06/27/14 Page 4 of 4