From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Israel v. Shmary

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jun 13, 2022
2:21-cv-0262-TLN-EFB P (E.D. Cal. Jun. 13, 2022)

Opinion

2:21-cv-0262-TLN-EFB P

06-13-2022

AKIVA AVIKAIDA ISRAEL, Plaintiff, v. RABBI SHMARY, et al., Defendants.


FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

EDMUND F. BRENNAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The United States Marshal previously returned process directed to defendant Alex Lainez, who plaintiff alleges was employed as Chaplain/Religious Review Committee Member at Mule Creek State Prison on or around September 2020 to September 2021. The unexecuted summons stated that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation was unable to locate an employee by that name. ECF No. 37.

On March 29, 2022, and again on May 3, 2022, the court instructed plaintiff to provide new information for service of process on defendant Lainez, and warned plaintiff that failure to do so or show cause for such failure would result in a recommendation that defendant Lainez be dismissed pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. ECF Nos. 38 & 43; 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 most recent order.

Plaintiff has had several opportunities to submit information about where defendant Lainez 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 Lainez has expired and plaintiff has failed to demonstrate the requisite good cause to avoid dismissal under Rule 4(m).

Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that defendant Lainez 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).


Summaries of

Israel v. Shmary

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jun 13, 2022
2:21-cv-0262-TLN-EFB P (E.D. Cal. Jun. 13, 2022)
Case details for

Israel v. Shmary

Case Details

Full title:AKIVA AVIKAIDA ISRAEL, Plaintiff, v. RABBI SHMARY, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Jun 13, 2022

Citations

2:21-cv-0262-TLN-EFB P (E.D. Cal. Jun. 13, 2022)