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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HENRY DESEAN ADAMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

DR. JESSICA HAMILTON, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-00327-YGR (PR)

NOTICE REGARDING INABILITY TO 

SERVE DEFENDANTS MDF PILL 

CALL NURSING STAFF NURSES 

SAHARA, SAMARIA, VINCE, AND 

JENNIFER

This Order addresses issues regarding service in the above-captioned action. The operative 

complaint is the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). Dkt. 17. In his SAC, Plaintiff, who is 

currently incarcerated at Martinez Detention Facility (“MDF”), named the following Defendants: 

MDF Medical Director Jessica Hamilton; MDF Nurse Provider Paul Manaut; and MDF Pill Call 

Nursing Staff Nurses Stephanie, Marytest, Mary, Sahara, Samaria, Vince, and Jennifer. Id. at 1. 

Plaintiff seeks monetary damages. Id. at 3.

On July 5, 2018, the Court issued its Order of Service upon determining that, liberally 

construed, Plaintiff’s allegations that the named Defendants failed to provide adequate medical 

treatment stated cognizable Eighth Amendment claims of deliberate indifference to his serious 

medical needs. See Dkt. 20. The Court ordered service on Defendants Hamilton, Manaut, and 

MDF Pill Call Nursing Staff Nurses Stephanie, Marytest, Mary, Sahara, Samaria, Vince, and 

Jennifer. Id. at 4. 

Service has been effective on Defendants Hamilton and Manaut as well as Defendants 

MDF Pill Call Nursing Staff Nurses “Stephanie, Marytest and Mary,” whose full names are

Stephanie Monahan, Maritess Rayrao, and Mary Bolds, respectively. See Dkts. 25-28.

However, service has been ineffective on Defendants MDF Pill Call Nursing Staff Nurses

Sahara, Samaria, Vince, and Jennifer. To date, the Court has not received waivers from these 

Defendants.

As Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, he is responsible for providing the Court with 

current addresses for all Defendants so that service can be accomplished. See Walker v. Sumner, 
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994); Sellers v. United States, 902 F.2d 598, 603 (7th Cir. 1990). 

While Plaintiff may rely on service by the United States Marshal, or in this case, the procedure for 

requesting a defendant to waive the service requirement, “a plaintiff may not remain silent and do 

nothing to effectuate such service.” Rochon v. Dawson, 828 F.2d 1107, 1110 (5th Cir. 1987). 

When advised of a problem accomplishing service, a pro se litigation must “attempt to remedy 

any apparent defects of which [he] has knowledge.” Id. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 4(m), if a complaint is not served within 90 days from the filing of the complaint, it 

may be dismissed without prejudice for failure of service. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) (providing that if 

service of the summons and complaint is not made upon a defendant in 90 days after the filing of 

the complaint, the action must be dismissed without prejudice as to that defendant absent a 

showing of “good cause”); see also Walker, 14 F.3d at 1421-22 (prisoner failed to show cause 

why prison official should not dismissed under Rule 4(m) because prisoner did not prove that he 

provided marshal with sufficient information to serve official).

No later than twenty-eight (28) days from the date of this Order, Plaintiff must provide 

the Court with the full names and current addresses for Defendants MDF Pill Call Nursing Staff 

Nurses Sahara, Samaria, Vince, and Jennifer. Plaintiff should review the federal discovery rules, 

Rules 26-37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for guidance about how to determine the 

current address of the aforementioned Defendants.

If Plaintiff fails to provide the Court with the full names and current addresses of the 

aforementioned Defendants within the twenty-eight-day deadline, all claims against them will be 

dismissed without prejudice under Rule 4(m).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: ______________________________________

YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

United States District Court Judge

November 19, 2018