Bynum v. Sweet

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JIM CARTER BYNUM, 11 Case No. 21-05833 BLF(PR) Plaintiff, 12 ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF v. TO PROVIDE COURT MORE 13 INFORMATION FOR DEFENDANT MARTIN LAUFIK 14 MARY KAREN SWEET, et. al, 15 Defendants. 16

17 18 Plaintiff, a California inmate, filed a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 19 1983 against staff at the Correctional Training Facility (“CTF”). Dkt. No. 1. On 20 November 6, 2019, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, which is the operative complaint 21 in this matter. Dkt. No. 12. On April 7, 2022, the Court ordered service and directed 22 Defendant Martin Laufik to file a dispositive motion or notice regarding such motion. Dkt. 23 No. 22. The Clerk issued a summons to be served by the United States Marshal’s Office. 24 Dkt. No. 23. On April 25, 2022, the United States Marshal’s Office filed the unexecuted 25 summons as to Martin Laufik with the notation, “Dr, Laufik does not work @ this 26 hospital.” Dkt. No. 25.1 Accordingly, Defendant Laufik has not been served. 27 1 Although a plaintiff who is incarcerated and proceeding in forma pauperis may rely 2 || on service by the Marshal, such plaintiff “may not remain silent and do nothing to 3 || effectuate such service’; rather, “[a]t a minimum, a plaintiff should request service upon 4 || the appropriate defendant and attempt to remedy any apparent defects of which [he] has 5 || knowledge.” Rochon v. Dawson, 828 F.2d 1107, 1110 (Sth Cir. 1987). Here, Plaintiff's 6 || complaint has been pending for over 90 days, and thus, absent a showing of “good cause,” 7 || claims against Defendant Laufik are subject to dismissal without prejudice. See Fed. R. 8 || Civ. P. 4m). Plaintiff must remedy the situation by providing more information regarding g || Defendant Laufik’s current whereabouts or face dismissal of his claims against this 10 || Defendant without prejudice. See Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1421-22 (9th Cir. 11 1994) (holding prisoner failed to show cause why prison official should not be dismissed 2 under Rule 4(m) where prisoner failed to show he had provided Marshal with sufficient E 13. || information to effectuate service). S 14 For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders Plaintiff to file a notice providing the 3 15 || Court with more information regarding the current whereabouts for Defendant Martin A 16 || Laufik such that the Marshal is able to effect service. If Plaintiff fails to provide the Court 5 17 || with the information requested within twenty-eight (28) days of the date this order is 5 18 || filed, Plaintiffs claims against Defendant Laufik shall be dismissed without prejudice 19 || pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure without further notice to 20 || Plaintiff. 21 IT ISSO ORDERED. 22 || Dated: _ April29,2022. Lowe bemner/ 33 BETH LABSON F REEMAN United States District Judge 24 25 Order Directing Pl. to Provide Court More Info. for Def. Laufik 26 PRO-SE\BLF\CR.21\05833Bynum_more info

27 notation, “No longer works here/cannot accept.” Dkt. No. 25.