Stuckey v. Risenhoover ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 ANDRE KENNETH STUCKEY, 7 Case No. 19-cv-03780-YGR (PR) Plaintiff, 8 NOTICE REGARDING INABILITY TO v. SERVE DEFENDANTS DR. MARIA 9 BOSTANJIAN AND DR. DEVINDER SUE RISENHOOVER, et al., KUMAR 10 Defendants. 11 12 This Order addresses issues regarding service in the above-captioned action. Service has 13 been ineffective on Defendants Dr. Maria Bostanjian and Dr. Devinder Kumar. The Court has 14 been informed Defendants Bostanjian and Kumar were not served because “Pelican Bay State 15 Prison does not have authorization to accept service for [these] individuals.” Dkt. 14. 16 As Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, he is responsible for providing the Court with 17 current addresses for all Defendants so that service can be accomplished. See Walker v. Sumner, 18 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994); Sellers v. United States, 902 F.2d 598, 603 (7th Cir. 1990). 19 While Plaintiff may rely on service by the United States Marshal, or in this case, the procedure for 20 requesting a defendant to waive the service requirement, “a plaintiff may not remain silent and do 21 nothing to effectuate such service.” Rochon v. Dawson, 828 F.2d 1107, 1110 (5th Cir. 1987). 22 When advised of a problem accomplishing service, a pro se litigation must “attempt to remedy 23 any apparent defects of which [he] has knowledge.” Id. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 24 Procedure 4(m), if a complaint is not served within 90 days from the filing of the complaint, it 25 may be dismissed without prejudice for failure of service. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) (providing that if 26 service of the summons and complaint is not made upon a defendant in 90 days after the filing of 27 the complaint, the action must be dismissed without prejudice as to that defendant absent a 1 why prison official should not dismissed under Rule 44m) because prisoner did not prove that he 2 || provided marshal with sufficient information to serve official). 3 No later than twenty-eight (28) days from the date of this Order, Plaintiff must provide 4 || the Court with a current address for Defendants Bostanjian and Kumar. Plaintiff should review 5 the federal discovery rules, Rules 26-37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for guidance 6 about how to determine the current address of these Defendants. 7 If Plaintiff fails to provide the Court with the current address of Defendants Bostanjian and 8 || Kumar within the twenty-eight-day deadline, all claims against these Defendants will be dismissed 9 without prejudice under Rule 4(m). 10 IT IS SO ORDERED. ll Dated: March 9, 2020 NNE GONZALEZ ROGERS %L United States District Court Judge © 15 16 = 17 Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28