(PC) Arzaga v. Santiago ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DANIEL JESUS ARZAGA, No. 2:18-cv-0313 KJM KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 14 E. SANTIAGO, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel; he paid the filing fee. By an order 18 filed August 27, 2021, this court ordered plaintiff to complete and return to the court, within thirty 19 days, the USM-285 forms necessary to effect service on defendants Haluik and Victoriano. (ECF 20 No. 83.) That thirty day period has passed, and plaintiff has not responded in any way to the 21 court’s order as to defendants Haluik and Victoriano.1 22 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that defendants Haluik and Victoriano 23 be dismissed from this action without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). 24 1 Plaintiff, who is not proceeding in forma pauperis, was provided multiple opportunities to 25 identify, locate and serve defendants Haluik and Victoriano. (ECF Nos. 32, 47, 50, 64, 72, 83, 88, 94.) On March 11, 2021, the court ordered E-Service on defendants Haluik, and Victoriano. 26 (ECF No. 73.) On April 1, 2021, the CDCR Notice of E-Service Waiver was filed, indicating the 27 CDCR would not waive service for such defendants. (ECF No. 77.) Despite checking with litigation coordinators at CHCF, CCHCS, PIP or Headquarters HR Personnel, defendants Haluik 28 and A. Victoriano could not be identified or located. (ECF No. 77.) ] These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 2 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days 3 || after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections 4 || with the court. The document should be captioned “Objections to Findings and 5 || Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time 6 || may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. YIst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th 7 || Cir. 1991). 8 || Dated: November 8, 2021 Foci) Aharon 10 KENDALL J. NE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 1] arza0313.fusm 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28