Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Hendon v. Baroya

September 8, 2010

CARLOS HENDON, PLAINTIFF,
v.
BAROYA, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary S. Austin United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY DEFENDANT HAMILTON SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE INFORMATION SUFFICIENT TO EFFECT SERVICE

(Doc. 29.)

THIRTY DAY DEADLINE

I. BACKGROUND

Carlos Hendon ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the complaint commencing this action on September 30, 2005. (Doc. 1.) This action now proceeds on Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint filed on June 26, 2008, against defendants Baroya, Pham, Hamilton, Nguyet, Hoppe, Griffin, and Reidman for subjecting him to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. 18.)

II. SERVICE BY UNITED STATES MARSHAL

On May 14, 2009, the court issued an order directing the United States Marshal to initiate service of process in this action upon defendants in this action. (Doc. 27.) All of the defendants were successfully served except defendants Hamilton and Hoppe.

Defendant Hoppe

On October 26, 2009, the Marshal filed a return of service unexecuted as to defendant Hoppe. (Doc. 38.) Based on the information set forth in the returned USM-285 forms, the Court cannot make a finding that Plaintiff has not provided sufficient information to locate this defendant. Therefore, by separate order, the Marshal shall be directed to initiate re-service upon defendant Hoppe by contacting the Legal Affairs Division of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation for assistance.

Defendant Hamilton

On June 25, 2009, the Marshal filed a return of service unexecuted as to defendant Hamilton. (Doc. 29.)

Pursuant to Rule 4(m),

[i]f service of the summons and complaint is not made upon a defendant within 120 days after the filing of the complaint, the court, upon motion or on its own initiative after notice to the plaintiff, shall dismiss the action without prejudice as to that defendant or direct that service be effected within a specified time; provided that if the plaintiff shows good ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.