Smith v. Fu

N.D. California

Smith v. Fu

District Court, N.D. California·Decided May 7, 2021·No. 5:19-cv-02119-BLF·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JASON A. SMITH, 11 Case No. 19-02119 BLF (PR) Plaintiff, 12 ORDER OF PERSONAL SERVICE v. ON DEFENDANT DR. RACHEL 13 ROSS

14 DR. LAW FU, et al., 15 Defendants. 16

17 18 Plaintiff, a California state prisoner, filed a civil rights complaint in pro se pursuant 19 to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against medical officials at the Correctional Training Facility 20 (“CTF”). Dkt. No. 1. The Court granted Defendants Law Fu, Dr. Mark Kowall, M. 21 Votaw, and S. Posson’s motions for summary judgment. Dkt. Nos. 51, 52. The only 22 remaining claim is against Dr. Rachel Ross. To date, there has been no response to the last 23 summons that was sent to Dr. Ross at the address provided by Plaintiff. Dkt. No. 55. 24 Accordingly, there is no indication that Defendant Dr. Ross has been served in this matter 25 at the address provided by Plaintiff. 26 In the interest of justice, the Court will order the Marshal to personally serve the 27 complaint. The Clerk shall issue summons and the United States Marshal shall serve, 1 || attachments, a copy of the Court’s orders of service, Dkt. Nos. 6 and 55, and a copy of this 2 || order on Defendant Dr. Rachel Lee Ross at 2941 Sunrise Blvd., Suite 210, Rancho 3 Cordova, CA 95742. 4 Plaintiff is advised that it is ultimately his responsibility to have the summons and 5 || complaint served within the time allowed by Rule 4(m) or face dismissal of his complaint. 6 || Accordingly, if personal service is not successful at the address provided by Plaintiff, 7 || absent a showing of good cause, the claims against Defendant Dr. Ross are subject to 8 || dismissal without prejudice. See Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1421-22 (9th Cir. 1994) g || (holding prisoner failed to show cause why prison official should not be dismissed under 10 || Rule 4(m) where prisoner failed to show he had provided Marshal with sufficient 11 || information to effectuate service). 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. E 13 || Dated: __May 7, 2021 Aah Lun amen) 4 BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge

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 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JASON A. SMITH, 11 Case No. 19-02119 BLF (PR) Plaintiff, 12 ORDER OF PERSONAL SERVICE v. ON DEFENDANT DR. RACHEL 13 ROSS

14 DR. LAW FU, et al., 15 Defendants. 16

17 18 Plaintiff, a California state prisoner, filed a civil rights complaint in pro se pursuant 19 to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against medical officials at the Correctional Training Facility 20 (“CTF”). Dkt. No. 1. The Court granted Defendants Law Fu, Dr. Mark Kowall, M. 21 Votaw, and S. Posson’s motions for summary judgment. Dkt. Nos. 51, 52. The only 22 remaining claim is against Dr. Rachel Ross. To date, there has been no response to the last 23 summons that was sent to Dr. Ross at the address provided by Plaintiff. Dkt. No. 55. 24 Accordingly, there is no indication that Defendant Dr. Ross has been served in this matter 25 at the address provided by Plaintiff. 26 In the interest of justice, the Court will order the Marshal to personally serve the 27 complaint. The Clerk shall issue summons and the United States Marshal shall serve, 1 || attachments, a copy of the Court’s orders of service, Dkt. Nos. 6 and 55, and a copy of this 2 || order on Defendant Dr. Rachel Lee Ross at 2941 Sunrise Blvd., Suite 210, Rancho 3 Cordova, CA 95742. 4 Plaintiff is advised that it is ultimately his responsibility to have the summons and 5 || complaint served within the time allowed by Rule 4(m) or face dismissal of his complaint. 6 || Accordingly, if personal service is not successful at the address provided by Plaintiff, 7 || absent a showing of good cause, the claims against Defendant Dr. Ross are subject to 8 || dismissal without prejudice. See Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1421-22 (9th Cir. 1994) g || (holding prisoner failed to show cause why prison official should not be dismissed under 10 || Rule 4(m) where prisoner failed to show he had provided Marshal with sufficient 11 || information to effectuate service). 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. E 13 || Dated: __May 7, 2021 Aah Lun amen) 4 BETH LABSON FREEMAN United States District Judge

Smith v. Fu, (N.D. Cal. 2021).

Pincite

Smith v. Fu (Smith v. Fu) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related