(PC) Moore v. Butte County

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RAYMOND E. MOORE, Jr., Case No. 2:22-cv-01517-DJC-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO EFFECT 14 BUTTE COUNTY, et al., SERVICE ON DEFENDANT SAGE 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, a former pretrial detainee, is proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant 18 to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 8, 2023, I directed the United States Marshal to serve several 19 defendants, including defendant Sage. ECF No. 31. Plaintiff listed defendant Sage’s address at 20 the Well Path in Oroville. Process directed at defendant Sage was returned as unserved because 21 defendant Sage is no longer an employee of Well Path and Well Path has no record of defendant 22 Sage’s current address. ECF No. 41. Accordingly, I ordered plaintiff to promptly seek 23 information for defendant Sage’s address through discovery, the California Public Records Act, 24 Calif. Gov’t. Code § 6250, et seq., or other means available. ECF No. 49. I instructed plaintiff to 25 complete and return to the court, within thirty days, the USM-285 form and summon, which are 26 required to effect service on defendant Sage. Id. Plaintiff returned a completed USM-285, but it 27 lists defendant Sage’s address as Well Path again. ECF No. 51. 28 If a defendant is not served within ninety days after a complaint is filed, the court must, 1 | after notice to the plaintiff, dismiss the action without prejudice. Fed. R. Civ. P. 44m). While 2 || prisoners may rely on the U.S. Marshal’s Office to serve a defendant, a district court may dismiss 3 | aprisoner’s civil rights complaint for a failure to effect service when the prisoner fails to provide 4 | the U.S. Marshals with sufficient information to serve a defendant. See Walker v. Sumner, 14 5 | F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994) overruled on other grounds by Sandin vy. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 6 | 483-84 (1995)); Wilson v. Moreno, No. ED-CV-14-513-JAK (DFM), 2016 WL 827702, at *5 7 | (C.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2016) (“Courts regularly dismiss actions for failure to make service under Fed. 8 || R. Civ. P. 44m) when a plaintiff provides the USMS with an inaccurate or obsolete address for a 9 | defendant.”). 10 Since defendant Sage is no longer a Well Path employee and Well Path does not have a 11 } current address for defendant Sage, I will not direct the Marshal to re-serve Well Path. Instead, I 12 | will grant plaintiff a final opportunity to provide an address or contact information for defendant 13 || Sage. Should plaintiff fail to do so, I will recommend that this action be dismissed pursuant to 14 | Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). 15 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 16 1. The Clerk of Court is directed to send to plaintiff one USM-285 form with instruction. 17 2. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete and submit the 18 | attached Notice of Submission of Documents to the court, with the completed USM-285 form 19 || required to effect service on defendant Sage. 20 3. Failure to comply with this order and return the copies within the specified time period 21 | will result in a recommendation that this defendant be dismissed. 22 73 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 ( q Sty — Dated: _ July 10, 2024 q——— 25 JEREMY D,. PETERSON 26 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

27 28

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 16 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 17 18 RAYMOND E. MOORE, JR., Case No. 2:22-cv-01517-DJC-JDP (PC) 19 Plaintiff, 20 v. NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS 21 BUTTE COUNTY, et al., 22 Defendants. 23 24 Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with the court’s order 25 filed _____________________ :

26 ____ completed USM-285 form

27 28 DATED: 1

2 ________________________________ Plaintiff 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28