Do v. California Corrections Health Care Services

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 MINH CONG DO, Case No. 23-cv-05906 BLF (PR)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO PROVIDE MORE 13 v. INFORMATION FOR DEFENDANT HAKAKI 14 CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONS HEALTH CARE SERVICES, et al., 15

Defendants. 16

18 Plaintiff, a California inmate, filed the instant pro se civil rights action pursuant to 19 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against medical staff at Pelican Bay State Prison (“PBSP”) where he was 20 formerly housed. Dkt. No. 8. On October 3, 2024, the Court found the amended 21 complaint stated cognizable claims against Defendants Dr. Bzoskie and Nurse Hakaki and 22 ordered the matter served. Dkt. No. 22. The CDCR filed a response, stating that they are 23 unable to identify “Nurse Hakaki.” Dkt. No. 23. Accordingly, this Defendant has not yet 24 been served. 25 Although a plaintiff who is incarcerated and proceeding in forma pauperis may rely 26 on service by the Marshal, such plaintiff “may not remain silent and do nothing to 27 effectuate such service”; rather, “[a]t a minimum, a plaintiff should request service upon 1 || the appropriate defendant and attempt to remedy any apparent defects of which [he] has 2 || knowledge.” Rochon v. Dawson, 828 F.2d 1107, 1110 (Sth Cir. 1987). Here, Plaintiff's 3 || complaint has been pending for over 90 days, and thus, absent a showing of “good cause,” 4 || claims against Defendant Hakaki are subject to dismissal without prejudice. See Fed. R. 5 || Civ. P. 4(m). Plaintiff must remedy the situation by providing more information to 6 || properly identify Defendant Hakaki as a current or former employee of PBSP or face 7 || dismissal of his claims against this Defendant without prejudice. See Walker v. Sumner, 8 || 14 F.3d 1415, 1421-22 (9th Cir. 1994) (holding prisoner failed to show cause why prison 9 || official should not be dismissed under Rule 4(m) where prisoner failed to show he had 10 || provided Marshal with sufficient information to effectuate service). 11 12 CONCLUSION E 13 Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff must file notice providing the Court with more S 14 || information to properly identify Defendant Nurse Hakaki, such as a first initial, such that 3 15 || the Marshal is able to effect service. If Plaintiff fails to provide the Court with the 16 || information requested within twenty-eight (28) days of the date this order is filed, 5 17 || Plaintiffs claims against Defendant Hakaki shall be dismissed without prejudice pursuant 5 18 || to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure without further notice to Plaintiff. 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 || Dated: _December 2, 2024 fcainphacnan BETH LABSON FREEMAN 71 United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 Order Directing Pl to Provide More Info for Def. Hakaki PRO-SE\BLF\CR.23\05906Do_more-info 26 27