Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

Bobby White v. L. Nguyen

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


January 4, 2012

BOBBY WHITE,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
L. NGUYEN, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Jennifer L. Thurston United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO EFFECTUATE SERVICE OF PROCESS

(Doc. 29)

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By order filed May 6, 2011, the Court screened Plaintiff's amended complaint and found that it states a cognizable claim against Defendant Chinyere I. Amadi , among others. (Doc. 11.) On June 29, 2011, the court directed the United States Marshal to initiate service of process in this action. (Doc. 15.) However, on August 24, 2011, the United States Marshal returned service for Defendant Amadi, unexecuted. (Doc. 23.)

In response, on September 23, 2011, the Court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to provide additional information to effectuate service, (Doc. 25) and on October 25, 2011, Plaintiff provided the additional information. (Doc. 26.) In his notice of additional information, Plaintiff explained that the Defendant had been improperly named and provided the correct name for Defendant Amadi. (Id.) In addition, Plaintiff provided an updated current address for the Defendant. (Id.) With this correction, the Court, on November 1, 2011, once again ordered the United States Marshall to initiate service.

However, on December 30, 2011, the United States Marshal returned service directed at Defendant Amadi unexecuted. (Doc. 29.) According to the USM-285 form, the USMS attempted service by mail to Dr. Amadi at the address provided by Plaintiff. Id. The United States Post Office returned the service documents as "not deliverable as addressed." Id. In addition, the USMS confirmed once again that Defendant Amadi was not found in the CDCR employee locator. Id. Thus, the USMS has certified that Defendant Amadi cannot be located. Id.

In light of these developments, the Court will provide one last opportunity with which to provide additional information regarding where Defendant Amadi may be served. Plaintiff is reminded that he must not delay in providing this information as Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) requires the dismissal of a defendant not served within 120 days after filing of the complaint unless the time is enlarged based upon a showing of good cause.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that within 14 days from the date of this order, Plaintiff SHALL provide additional information as to where Defendant Amadi may be served. Alternatively, Plaintiff may notify the Court that he chooses to proceed with the case only as to the defendants who have been served.

Plaintiff is advised that his failure to comply with the Court's order, will result in a recommendation that the matter be dismissed as to Defendant Amadi pursuant to Rule 4(m).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20120104

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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