Travis v. Gomez

Opinion

1 2 3 6 7 CURTIS TRAVIS, Case No. 22-cv-04199-HSG

8 Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO EFFECT SERVICE ON DEFENDANTS 9 v. RAMERIZE AND D. RAMIREZ

10 J. GOMEZ, et al., 11 Defendants.

12 13 On or about July 19, 2022, Plaintiff, an inmate at Salinas Valley State Prison (“SVSP”), 14 commenced this pro se action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On December 19, 2022, the Court 15 screened the operative complaint and found that it stated cognizable Eighth Amendment claim 16 against defendants SVSP correctional officers J. Gomez, Barnes, Ramerize, and Muniz and nurse 17 D. Ramirez. Dkt. No. 25. The Court ordered service on Defendants pursuant to the California 18 Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation’s (“CDCR”) e-service program for civil rights cases 19 from prisoners in the CDCR’s custody. Id. Pursuant to this program, on February 9, 2023, the 20 CDCR filed a completed CDCR Report of E-Service Waiver advising the court that defendants 21 Gomez, Barnes, and Muniz waived service of process without the need for service by the United 22 States Marshal Service (“USMS”) and that the CDCR could not identify defendants Ramirez and 23 D. Ramirez. Dkt. No. 28. 24 A plaintiff who is incarcerated and proceeding in forma pauperis may rely on service by 25 the Marshal, but such plaintiff “may not remain silent and do nothing to effectuate such service;” 26 rather, “[a]t a minimum, a plaintiff should request service upon the appropriate defendant and 27 attempt to remedy any apparent defects of which [he] has knowledge.” Rochon v. Dawson, 828 1 90 days is subject to dismissal without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 44m). 2 Plaintiff has not provided sufficient information to allow the Marshal to locate and serve 3 defendants Ramerize and D. Ramirez, and the operative complaint was filed on November 7, 4 2022, Dkt. No. 22. Consequently, Plaintiff must remedy the situation or face dismissal of 5 defendants Ramerize and D. Ramirez without prejudice. See Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 6 1421-22 (9th Cir. 1994) (holding prisoner failed to show cause why prison official should not be 7 dismissed under Rule 4(m) where prisoner failed to show he had provided Marshal with sufficient 8 information to effectuate service). 9 Accordingly, within twenty-eight (28) days of this order, Plaintiff must effect service on 10 defendants Ramerize and D. Ramirez, or submit to the Court sufficient information to identify and 11 locate defendants Ramerize and D. Ramirez such that the Marshal is able to effect service. 12 Failure to comply with the deadline set forth in this order will result in dismissal of 5 13 defendants Ramerize and D. Ramirez without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the 14 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 3 15 IT IS SO ORDERED. 16 ] Dated: 2/21/2023 Alatpered 8 Mbt |) 8 HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28