Fred F. Orellana v. Som

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: November 14, 2025
• Docket: 1:24-cv-01590
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FRED F. ORELLANA, Case No. 1:24-cv-01590-KES-BAM (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY DEFENDANT SOM SHOULD NOT BE 13 v. DISMISSED FROM THIS ACTION FOR FAILURE TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT 14 SOM, INFORMATION TO EFFECTUATE SERVICE 15 Defendant. (ECF No. 13) 16 THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE 17 18 Plaintiff Fred F. Orellana (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 19 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds against 20 Defendant Som for deliberate indifference to medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment 21 for the lack of care provided after the fall. 22 On September 16, 2025, the Court issued an order directing service on Defendant Som 23 under the Court’s E-Service pilot program for civil rights cases for the Eastern District of 24 California. (ECF No. 13.) The order included the following information regarding Defendant 25 Lopez: “Dr. Som, primary care doctor, Valley State Prison.” (Id. at 2.) On September 29, 2025, 26 the Court received information that Dr. Som could not be identified. Service documents were 27 forwarded to the United States Marshals Service. On November 14, 2025, the United States 28 Marshal filed a return of service unexecuted as to Defendant Som. (ECF No. 16.) 1 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) provides as follows:

2 If a defendant is not served within 120 days after the complaint is filed, the 3 court—on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made 4 within a specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period. 5 6 Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). 7 In cases involving a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis, the Marshal, upon order of the 8 court, shall serve the summons and the complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3). “[A]n incarcerated pro 9 se plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis is entitled to rely on the U.S. Marshal for service of the 10 summons and complaint, and . . . should not be penalized by having his or her action dismissed 11 for failure to effect service where the U.S. Marshal or the court clerk has failed to perform the 12 duties required of each of them . . . .” Puett v. Blandford, 912 F.2d 270, 275 (9th Cir. 1990). “So 13 long as the prisoner has furnished the information necessary to identify the defendant, the 14 marshal’s failure to effect service is ‘automatically good cause . . . .’” Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 15 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994), abrogated on other grounds by Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472, 115 16 (1995). However, where a pro se plaintiff fails to provide the Marshal with accurate and 17 sufficient information to effect service of the summons and complaint, the Court’s sua sponte 18 dismissal of the unserved defendant is appropriate. Walker, 14 F.3d at 1421–22. 19 Here, the U.S. Marshal attempted to electronically serve Defendant Som with the 20 information that Plaintiff provided. However, the Court was informed that Dr. Som could not be 21 identified. The U.S. Marshal then attempted personal service on Defendant Som, but was also 22 informed that Defendant Som could not be identified by the institution or using a search of the 23 Department of Consumer Affairs website based on the provided information. (ECF No. 16.) 24 Plaintiff therefore has not provided sufficient information to locate Defendant Som for service of 25 process. If Plaintiff is unable to provide the Marshal with the necessary information to locate this 26 defendant, Defendant Som shall be dismissed from this action, without prejudice. As Defendant 27 Som is the only defendant named in this action, the action will also be dismissed, without 28 prejudice. 1 Pursuant to Rule 4(m), the Court will provide Plaintiff with the opportunity to show cause 2 why Defendant Som should not be dismissed from the action at this time. Plaintiff may respond 3 to this order by providing additional information that will assist the Marshal in locating 4 Defendant Som for service of process. 5 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 6 1. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall show cause 7 why Defendant Som should not be dismissed from this action; and 8 2. The failure to respond to this order or the failure to show cause will result in the 9 dismissal of any unidentified defendant from this action, and dismissal of this action, 10 due to Plaintiff’s failure to serve process pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 4(m). 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13

14 Dated: November 14, 2025 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15

16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28