Rodriguez v. Koenig ( 2020 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 CESAR A. RODRIGUEZ, 4 Case No. 19-cv-01273-YGR (PR) Plaintiff, 5 ORDER DISMISSING WITHOUT v. PREJUDICE ALL CLAIMS AGAINST 6 DEFENDANT DEPUTY PETE LABAHN, et al., COMMISSIONER JAMES MARTIN 7 Defendants. 8 9 On March 8, 2019, Plaintiff Cesar A. Rodriguez, a former state prisoner, filed the present 10 pro se prisoner action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Thereafter, the Court issued an Order of Service. 11 However, to date, Defendant Deputy Commissioner James Martin has not been served in this 12 action. 13 As Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis (IFP), he is responsible for providing the 14 Court with current addresses for all Defendants so that service can be accomplished. See Walker 15 v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994); Sellers v. United States, 902 F.2d 598, 603 (7th 16 Cir. 1990). 17 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), if a complaint is not served within 120 18 days from the filing of the complaint, it may be dismissed without prejudice for failure of service. 19 When advised of a problem accomplishing service, a pro se litigant proceeding IFP must “attempt 20 to remedy any apparent defects of which [he] has knowledge.” Rochon v. Dawson, 828 F.2d 21 1107, 1110 (5th Cir. 1987). If the Marshal is unable to effectuate service through no fault of his 22 own, e.g., because the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient information, the plaintiff must seek to 23 remedy the situation or face dismissal. See Walker, 14 F.3d at 1421-22 (prisoner failed to show 24 cause why complaint against prison official should not be dismissed under Rule 4(m) because 25 prisoner did not prove that he provided Marshal with sufficient information to serve official or that 26 he requested that official be served). 27 In an Order dated January 3, 2020, the Court informed Plaintiff that service had been 1 address for Defendant Martin within twenty-eight days of the Order. Twenty-eight days have 2 || passed, and Plaintiff has failed to provide the Court with the aforementioned required information. 3 This action has been pending for over 120 days, and service upon Defendant Martin has 4 || not been effectuated. Plaintiff has failed to show cause why the claims against Defendant Martin 5 should not be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m). Accordingly, all claims against 6 || Defendant Martin are DISMISSED without prejudice under Rule 4(m). 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Dated: March 3, 2020 9 ONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS 10 United States District Court Judge 11 a 12 13 © 15 16 = 17 Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28