Bulandr v. Robertson ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 IAN ANTHONY BULANDR, Case No. 19-cv-7942-BLF (PR) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF 13 v. TO PROVIDE MORE INFORMATION FOR UNSERVED 14 DEFENDANT JIM ROBERTSON, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff, a state prisoner at the Pelican Bay State Prison (“PBSP”) in Crescent City, 19 filed the instant pro se civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against PBSP 20 personnel. After an initial review, the Court found the complaint stated a cognizable claim 21 for a violation of the Free Exercise Clause. Dkt. No. 8. 22 On June 22, 2020, the Clerk mailed Notices of Lawsuit, Request for Waiver of 23 Service of Summons and Waivers of Service of Summons to Defendants: Chaplin Gary 24 Adbullah; Warden Jim Robertson; Officer Galarza; Officer Kinney; Officer D. Martinez 25 and Community Resource Manager Robert Losaco. Dkt. Nos. 9-14. On August 27, 2020, 26 Deputy Attorney General C. Hay-Mie Cho filed a letter informing the Court that their 27 office does not represent Defendant Officer Galarza. Further, they report that PBSP does 1 || not have any record of an employee named Galarza and does not have an address for 2 him/her. Dkt. No. 19. 3 Although a plaintiff who is incarcerated and proceeding in forma pauperis may rely 4 || on service by the Marshal, such plaintiff “may not remain silent and do nothing to 5 || effectuate such service”; rather, “[a]t a minimum, a plaintiff should request service upon 6 || the appropriate defendant and attempt to remedy any apparent defects of which [he] has 7 || knowledge.” Rochon v. Dawson, 828 F.2d 1107, 1110 (Sth Cir. 1987). Here, Plaintiff's 8 || complaint has been pending for over 90 days, and thus, absent a showing of “good cause,” g || claims against Defendant Officer Galarza is subject to dismissal without prejudice. See 10 || Fed. R. Civ. P. 44m). Plaintiff must remedy the situation by providing more information in 11 || order to properly identify Defendant Officer Galarza or face dismissal of his claims against 2 this Defendant without prejudice. See Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1421-22 (9th Cir. E 13. || 1994) (holding prisoner failed to show cause why prison official should not be dismissed S 14 || under Rule 4(m) where prisoner failed to show he had provided Marshal with sufficient 3 15 || information to effectuate service). 16 For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders Plaintiff to file a notice providing the 5 17 || Court with more information regarding Defendant Officer Galarza such that the Marshal 5 18 is able to effect service. If Plaintiff fails to provide the Court with the information 19 || requested within twenty-eight (28) days of the date this order is filed, Plaintiff's claim 20 || against Defendant Officer Galarza shall be dismissed without prejudice pursuant to Rule 71 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 22 IT ISSO ORDERED. 23 || Dated: September 4, 2020 _ fod. Celaya prcerccn) BETH LABSON FREEMAN 24 United States District Judge 25 26 27 Order Directing Plaintiff to Provide More Information for Unserved Defendants PRO-SE\BLF\CR.19\7942Bulandr_moreinfo