Coleman v. Adams

Full title: SAAHDI COLEMAN, Plaintiff, v. DERRAL G. ADAMS, et al., Defendants.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Aug 23, 2012

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-00836-AWI-GBC (PC) (E.D. Cal. Aug. 23, 2012)

Opinion

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-00836-AWI-GBC (PC)

08-23-2012

SAAHDI COLEMAN, Plaintiff, v. DERRAL G. ADAMS, et al., Defendants.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY DEFENDANT DEERING SHOULD

NOT BE DISMISSED FROM THIS ACTION

(Doc. 27)

RESPONSE FROM PLAINTIFF DUE IN

THIRTY DAYS

Plaintiff Saahdi Coleman ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court found that Plaintiff's complaint stated cognizable claims against Defendants Adams, Divine, Martinez, Close, Suryadevara, Kyle, Nguyen, Deering, Quezada, Smith, and Vierra for deliberate indifference to his medical needs. Doc. 18; Doc. 22.¹

1 There is no indication on the docket that service was ever attempted on Defendants Close and Quezada.

On June 16, 2009, the Court forwarded documents to Plaintiff with instructions to complete and return them to the Court for service of process on the Defendants. Doc. 21. After Plaintiff returned the completed documents, on June 30, 2009, the Court ordered the United States Marshal to initiate service of process upon Defendants. Docs. 24. On August 24, 2009, summons was returned unexecuted as to Defendant Deering with a notation that Defendant Deering had died. Doc. 27.

Thus, Defendant Deering was not successfully served and has not appeared in this action. Therefore, Plaintiff shall be ordered to show cause why Defendant Deering should not be dismissed. Within thirty days, Plaintiff shall file a written response with the Court explaining why Defendant Deering should not be dismissed from this action for failure to successfully complete service of process. In the alternative, Plaintiff may file a non-opposition to the dismissal of Defendant Deering.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within thirty days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall file a written response showing cause why Defendant Deering should not be dismissed from this action for failure to successfully complete service of process;
2. In the alternative, Plaintiff may file a written non-opposition to the dismissal of Defendant Deering; and
3. Plaintiff's failure to comply with this order shall result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

___________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE