Azucena v. Runjyin

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 CALEB J. AZUCENA, Case No. 23-cv-03234-HSG

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART REQUEST FOR 9 v. EXTENSION OF TIME TO EFFECT SERVICE ON DEFENDANT RUNJYIN 10 RUNJYIN, Re: Dkt. No. 13 11 Defendant.

12 13 Plaintiff has filed a Bivens action against United States Customs and Border Protection 14 agent Runjyin. On April 22, 2024, the Court informed Plaintiff that the United States Marshal had 15 been unable to effect service on defendant Runjyin. The United States Marshal had been informed 16 by the Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) that there was no employee with Runjyin as either 17 a first or last name. Dkt. No. 12. The Court ordered Plaintiff to, by May 19, 2024, either effect 18 service on defendant Runjyin or submit to the Court sufficient information to identify and locate 19 defendant Runjyin such that the Marshal is able to effect service. Id. The Court informed Plaintiff 20 that failure to comply with this deadline would result in the action being dismissed for failure to 21 effect service pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Plaintiff has requested an extension of time to July 22 15, 2024 to comply with this deadline, stating that Runjyin was the name on the individual’s 23 government-issued badge, and that he has “no means” to comply with the Court’s order. Dkt. No. 24 13.1 Plaintiff has not explained why granting him a two-month extension of time would allow him 25 1 In this pleading, Plaintiff also states that he has filed two state court actions that are currently 26 stayed pending the resolution of this action. Plaintiff has not indicated the subject matter of these state court actions. However, the Court cautions Plaintiff that duplicative or repetitious litigation 27 of virtually identical causes of action is subject to dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 as malicious. 1 to effect service, and according to Plaintiffs request for an extension of time, he is unable to 2 determine the individual’s correct name so that the United States Marshal can effect service. The 3 || Court therefore DENIES the request for an extension of time to July 15, 2024 to comply with the 4 Court’s April 22, 2024 Order, but, in the interest of justice, GRANTS Plaintiff an extension of 5 time to June 17, 2024 to either effect service on defendant Runjyin or submit to the Court 6 sufficient information to identify and locate defendant Runyjyin such that the Marshal is able to 7 effect service. Failure to comply with the deadline in this order will result in the action being 8 dismissed for failure to effect service pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 44m) without further notice to 9 || Plaintiff. 10 This order terminates Dkt. No. 13. 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: 5/15/2024

Alapurl 5 Mb |. HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. 14 United States District Judge 15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 97 || under § 1915. Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n.2 (9th Cir. 1995); Bailey, 846 F.2d at 1021. An in forma pauperis complaint repeating the same factual allegations asserted in an earlier 28 case, even if now filed against new defendants, therefore is subject to dismissal as duplicative. Bailey, 846 F.2d at 1021.