1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SAAHDI ABDUL COLEMAN, Case No.: 1:23-cv-00324-KES-CDB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY DEFENDANT MOSHE SHOULD NOT BE 13 v. DISMISSED FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT 14 TERRENCE McCOY, et al., INFORMATION TO EFFECTUATE 15 Defendants. SERVICE
16 30-DAY DEADLINE
17 18 Plaintiff Saahdi Abdul Coleman is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 19 rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s Eighth 20 Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claims against Defendants McCoy, 21 McDaniel, Russell, Moshe, Crawford, Vasquez, and Fincalero. 22 I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND 23 The Court issued its Second Screening Order on January 9, 2026. (Doc. 28.) Relevant 24 here, the Court determined Plaintiff sufficiently alleged a deliberate indifference to serious 25 medical needs claim against Defendant Moshe. (Id. at 5-13.) 26 On January 12, 2026, the Court issued its Order Finding Service Appropriate as to Newly 27 Added or Identified Defendants. (Doc. 29.) More specifically, the Court ordered that service be effected on “Moshe, allegedly employed as a physician at CSP-COR in 2021 and/or 2022.” (Id. at 1 2, emphasis in original.) 2 On January 15, 2026, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 3 (CDCR) filed their notice of intent to waive service of process regarding the other individuals that 4 were the subject of the January 12 service order: Terrence McCoy and F. Fincalero (Doc. 31 5 [sealed]) but indicated it could not waive service concerning Defendant Moshe (Doc. 32 [sealed]). 6 Hence, service documents were forwarded to the United States Marshal (USM) concerning 7 Defendant Moshe. 8 On January 20, 2026, the USM filed its USM-285 form indicating service of Defendant 9 Moshe could not be effected. (See Doc. 33.) 10 II. DISCUSSION 11 As noted above, CDCR did not waive service of process on behalf of Defendant Moshe. 12 Rather, CDCR indicated that it was “Unable to identify” Defendant Moshe. And, when the USM 13 undertook service of process efforts, it contacted the litigation coordinator at California State 14 Prison, Corcoran (CSP-COR) who advised the USM that CSP-COR was “’unable to identify a 15 Dr. Moshe.’” (Doc. 33.) The USM’s subsequent efforts involved consulting “the [Department of 16 Consumer Affairs] and other open sources,” without success. The USM indicated that “[m]ore 17 info is needed to try and identify Dr. Moshe. No reliable results found for a Dr. Moshe.” (Id.) 18 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) provides as follows:
19 If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court— 20 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 within a 21 specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period. 22 23 Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). 24 In cases involving a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis, the USM, upon order of the 25 court, shall serve the summons and the complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3). “[A]n incarcerated pro 26 se plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis is entitled to rely on the U.S. Marshal for service of the 27 summons and complaint, and . . . should not be penalized by having his or her action dismissed 1 for failure to effect service where the U.S. Marshal or the court clerk has failed to perform the 2 duties required of each of them . . ..” Puett v. Blandford, 912 F.2d 270, 275 (9th Cir. 1990). 3 “So long as the prisoner has furnished the information necessary to identify the defendant, the 4 marshal’s failure to effect service is ‘automatically good cause . . ..’” Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 5 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994), abrogated on other grounds by Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472 6 (1995). However, where a pro se plaintiff fails to provide the USM with accurate and sufficient 7 information to effect service of the summons and complaint, the Court’s sua sponte dismissal of 8 the unserved defendant is appropriate. Walker, 14 F.3d at 1421-22. 9 Here, the USM was unable to identify and/or locate Defendant Moshe. Plaintiff identified 10 this individual as a physician or “Doctor” employed at CSP-COR during the period giving rise to 11 his claims. (See Doc. 27 [first amended complaint].) However, the CDCR advised it was unable 12 to identify a Dr. Moshe employed with CDCR. Further, when the USM undertook efforts to 13 locate and identify Defendant Moshe employing other resources, it was not successful. Hence, the 14 Court finds Plaintiff has failed to provide the USM with accurate and sufficient information to 15 effect service of the summons and operative complaint on Defendant Moshe. Walker, 14 F.3d at 16 1421-22. If Plaintiff is unable to provide the USM with the necessary information to identify and 17 locate this individual, Defendant Moshe shall be dismissed from this action, without prejudice, 18 pursuant to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 19 To be clear, it is Plaintiff’s obligation to provide the USM with accurate and sufficient 20 information to effect service of process. Walker, 14 F.3d at 1421-22; see, e.g., Lear v. Navarro, 21 No. 1:21-cv-00600-DAD-BAM (PC), 2022 WL 2819034, at *2 (E.D. Cal. July 19, 2022) (“as the 22 Marshal has already attempted to serve Defendant Plata with the information that was provided, 23 the Court finds that Plaintiff has not provided sufficient information to identify and locate 24 Defendant Plata for service of process. To the extent Plaintiff requests that the Court order 25 [CDCR] Defendants or defense counsel to provide such information directly to the Court, by 26 order or by email, the Court declines to do so”); Steward v. Igbinosa, No. 1:18-cv-00551-AWI- 27 BAM (PC), 2021 WL 3488282, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2021) (it is not CDCR’s responsibility to 1 other information that can be used to locate Defendant Nelson, and as the Marshal has already 2 attempted to serve Defendant Nelson with the information provided, the Court finds that Plaintiff 3 has not provided sufficient information to identify and locate Defendant Nelson for service of 4 process”). And it is not the USM’s responsibility to identify and locate Defendant Moshe. See, 5 e.g., Heredia v. Lawrence, No. 17cv1560-LAB (LL), 2019 WL 1330316, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 6 25, 2019) (plaintiff suggested burden of locating defendants should “be on the USMS or the 7 Court” but it is plaintiff’s responsibility to provide the necessary information and the “USMS 8 does its best to effect service as instructed, but it does not have the ability to track down every 9 defendant named in a complaint if the information provided by the plaintiff is faulty”). Nor does 10 that burden fall on or extend to the Court. See Heredia, 2019 WL 1330316, at *2; Harbridge v. 11 Hall, Lee, and Tucker, No. 1:10-cv-00473-DAD-JLT (PC), 2017 WL 1821282, at *5 (E.D. Cal. 12 May 5, 2017) (same).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SAAHDI ABDUL COLEMAN, Case No.: 1:23-cv-00324-KES-CDB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY DEFENDANT MOSHE SHOULD NOT BE 13 v. DISMISSED FOR PLAINTIFF’S FAILURE TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT 14 TERRENCE McCOY, et al., INFORMATION TO EFFECTUATE 15 Defendants. SERVICE
16 30-DAY DEADLINE
17 18 Plaintiff Saahdi Abdul Coleman is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 19 rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s Eighth 20 Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claims against Defendants McCoy, 21 McDaniel, Russell, Moshe, Crawford, Vasquez, and Fincalero. 22 I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND 23 The Court issued its Second Screening Order on January 9, 2026. (Doc. 28.) Relevant 24 here, the Court determined Plaintiff sufficiently alleged a deliberate indifference to serious 25 medical needs claim against Defendant Moshe. (Id. at 5-13.) 26 On January 12, 2026, the Court issued its Order Finding Service Appropriate as to Newly 27 Added or Identified Defendants. (Doc. 29.) More specifically, the Court ordered that service be effected on “Moshe, allegedly employed as a physician at CSP-COR in 2021 and/or 2022.” (Id. at 1 2, emphasis in original.) 2 On January 15, 2026, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation 3 (CDCR) filed their notice of intent to waive service of process regarding the other individuals that 4 were the subject of the January 12 service order: Terrence McCoy and F. Fincalero (Doc. 31 5 [sealed]) but indicated it could not waive service concerning Defendant Moshe (Doc. 32 [sealed]). 6 Hence, service documents were forwarded to the United States Marshal (USM) concerning 7 Defendant Moshe. 8 On January 20, 2026, the USM filed its USM-285 form indicating service of Defendant 9 Moshe could not be effected. (See Doc. 33.) 10 II. DISCUSSION 11 As noted above, CDCR did not waive service of process on behalf of Defendant Moshe. 12 Rather, CDCR indicated that it was “Unable to identify” Defendant Moshe. And, when the USM 13 undertook service of process efforts, it contacted the litigation coordinator at California State 14 Prison, Corcoran (CSP-COR) who advised the USM that CSP-COR was “’unable to identify a 15 Dr. Moshe.’” (Doc. 33.) The USM’s subsequent efforts involved consulting “the [Department of 16 Consumer Affairs] and other open sources,” without success. The USM indicated that “[m]ore 17 info is needed to try and identify Dr. Moshe. No reliable results found for a Dr. Moshe.” (Id.) 18 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) provides as follows:
19 If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court— 20 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 within a 21 specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period. 22 23 Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). 24 In cases involving a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis, the USM, upon order of the 25 court, shall serve the summons and the complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3). “[A]n incarcerated pro 26 se plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis is entitled to rely on the U.S. Marshal for service of the 27 summons and complaint, and . . . should not be penalized by having his or her action dismissed 1 for failure to effect service where the U.S. Marshal or the court clerk has failed to perform the 2 duties required of each of them . . ..” Puett v. Blandford, 912 F.2d 270, 275 (9th Cir. 1990). 3 “So long as the prisoner has furnished the information necessary to identify the defendant, the 4 marshal’s failure to effect service is ‘automatically good cause . . ..’” Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 5 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994), abrogated on other grounds by Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472 6 (1995). However, where a pro se plaintiff fails to provide the USM with accurate and sufficient 7 information to effect service of the summons and complaint, the Court’s sua sponte dismissal of 8 the unserved defendant is appropriate. Walker, 14 F.3d at 1421-22. 9 Here, the USM was unable to identify and/or locate Defendant Moshe. Plaintiff identified 10 this individual as a physician or “Doctor” employed at CSP-COR during the period giving rise to 11 his claims. (See Doc. 27 [first amended complaint].) However, the CDCR advised it was unable 12 to identify a Dr. Moshe employed with CDCR. Further, when the USM undertook efforts to 13 locate and identify Defendant Moshe employing other resources, it was not successful. Hence, the 14 Court finds Plaintiff has failed to provide the USM with accurate and sufficient information to 15 effect service of the summons and operative complaint on Defendant Moshe. Walker, 14 F.3d at 16 1421-22. If Plaintiff is unable to provide the USM with the necessary information to identify and 17 locate this individual, Defendant Moshe shall be dismissed from this action, without prejudice, 18 pursuant to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 19 To be clear, it is Plaintiff’s obligation to provide the USM with accurate and sufficient 20 information to effect service of process. Walker, 14 F.3d at 1421-22; see, e.g., Lear v. Navarro, 21 No. 1:21-cv-00600-DAD-BAM (PC), 2022 WL 2819034, at *2 (E.D. Cal. July 19, 2022) (“as the 22 Marshal has already attempted to serve Defendant Plata with the information that was provided, 23 the Court finds that Plaintiff has not provided sufficient information to identify and locate 24 Defendant Plata for service of process. To the extent Plaintiff requests that the Court order 25 [CDCR] Defendants or defense counsel to provide such information directly to the Court, by 26 order or by email, the Court declines to do so”); Steward v. Igbinosa, No. 1:18-cv-00551-AWI- 27 BAM (PC), 2021 WL 3488282, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 9, 2021) (it is not CDCR’s responsibility to 1 other information that can be used to locate Defendant Nelson, and as the Marshal has already 2 attempted to serve Defendant Nelson with the information provided, the Court finds that Plaintiff 3 has not provided sufficient information to identify and locate Defendant Nelson for service of 4 process”). And it is not the USM’s responsibility to identify and locate Defendant Moshe. See, 5 e.g., Heredia v. Lawrence, No. 17cv1560-LAB (LL), 2019 WL 1330316, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 6 25, 2019) (plaintiff suggested burden of locating defendants should “be on the USMS or the 7 Court” but it is plaintiff’s responsibility to provide the necessary information and the “USMS 8 does its best to effect service as instructed, but it does not have the ability to track down every 9 defendant named in a complaint if the information provided by the plaintiff is faulty”). Nor does 10 that burden fall on or extend to the Court. See Heredia, 2019 WL 1330316, at *2; Harbridge v. 11 Hall, Lee, and Tucker, No. 1:10-cv-00473-DAD-JLT (PC), 2017 WL 1821282, at *5 (E.D. Cal. 12 May 5, 2017) (same). 13 Pursuant to Rule 4(m), the Court will provide Plaintiff with the opportunity to show cause 14 why Defendant Moshe should not be dismissed from the action at this time. Plaintiff may respond 15 to this order by providing additional information that will assist the USM in identifying and 16 locating Defendant Moshe for service of process. For example, Plaintiff should provide 17 Defendant Moshe’s first initial or first name, if available to Plaintiff (Plaintiff should also confirm 18 the spelling of this individual’s last name is accurate). Plaintiff may also provide a copy of any 19 document referencing “Moshe” as a physician at CSP-COR during the period when his claims 20 arose.1 If such a document is not available, Plaintiff should provide a physical description of 21 Defendant Moshe, to include that individual’s gender, approximate age, height and weight, and 22 any other helpful and available identifying information. Notably too, if it is possible that 23 Defendant Moshe was not a doctor or physician, as originally indicated, Plaintiff shall advise
24 1 Plaintiff previously was granted permission to conduct limited discovery to identify the Doe defendants named in his original complaint. Plaintiff thereafter moved for leave to file an amended complaint, noting he wished to identify 25 “the proper parties now known to Plaintiff following the delayed release of medical records.” (See Doc. 22 at 1.) Plaintiff also stated the information he had recently obtained “revealed the identities of individuals directly involved 26 in the alleged civil rights violations” and that he sought “only to substitute those names for the previously unidentified Doe defendants ….” (Id. at 2.) Thereafter, Defendant Moshe was identified in Plaintiff’s first amended 27 complaint as a physician who provided care on October 7, 2021. (See Doc. 27 at 4.) Presumably then, Plaintiff may possess additional information that would assist the USM in serving Defendant Moshe with a summons and 1 | whether Defendant Moshe worked in some other medical capacity at CSP-COR (e.g., nurse 2 | practitioner, registered nurse, physical therapist, etc.) based upon the information available to 3 | him. 4 I. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 5 Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that: 6 1. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall show cause 7 in writing why Defendant Moshe should not be dismissed from this action. Plaintiff may 8 do so by providing additional information concerning the identity and location of 9 Defendant Moshe. 10 2. Any failure by Plaintiff to timely respond to this order will result in the dismissal of 11 any unidentified defendant from this action, due to Plaintiff’s failure to serve process 12 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). 13 | IT IS SO ORDERED. 4) Dated: _ January 21, 2026 | hr 15 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28