Sessoms v. Keller

Full title: TIO DINERO SESSOMS, Plaintiff, v. JOHN PATRICK KELLER, et al., Defendants.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Jul 19, 2018

No. 2:16-cv-1943-EFB P (E.D. Cal. Jul. 19, 2018)

Opinion

No. 2:16-cv-1943-EFB P

07-19-2018

TIO DINERO SESSOMS, Plaintiff, v. JOHN PATRICK KELLER, et al., Defendants.

EDMUND F. BRENNAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff is a former state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 10, 2018, the court informed him that for the second time that the United States Marshal had been unable to serve defendant Venegas, Jr. using the information provided by plaintiff. ECF No. 38. The court instructed plaintiff to provide new information for service of process within 30 days and warned him that failure to do so or show cause for such failure would result in a recommendation that defendant Venegas, Jr. be dismissed pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures. Id.; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) (service of process must be effected within 90 days of the filing of the complaint unless plaintiff demonstrates good cause). The time for acting has passed and plaintiff has not responded to the court's order.

Plaintiff has had three opportunities to submit information about where defendant Venegas, Jr. can be served, and has been warned that Rule 4(m) requires that service of process be effected within 90 days of the filing of the complaint absent a showing of good cause. The time for serving defendant Venegas, Jr. has expired and plaintiff has failed to demonstrate the requisite good cause to avoid dismissal under Rule 4(m).

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to randomly assign a United States District Judge to this case.

Further, it is RECOMMENDED that defendant Venegas, Jr. be dismissed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within fourteen days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). DATED: July 19, 2018.

/s/_________

EDMUND F. BRENNAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE