Opinion
2:20-CV-0472-DMC-P
12-29-2021
BRANDON MICHAEL LANDRETH, Plaintiff, v. BHUPINDER LEHIL, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
DENNIS M. COTA, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court are Plaintiff's motions, ECF No. 28 and 37, for the Court to effect service of process on Defendant Ottenbacher.
Plaintiff's motions are denied because, while Plaintiff's in forma pauperis status permits service by the United States Marshal without pre-payment of costs therefor, the Court itself cannot effect service of process on behalf of Plaintiff. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(m) (requiring the plaintiff to serve process). Here, the USM has attempted service of process on Defendant Ottenbacher at an address provided by Plaintiff, which is Ottenbacher's counsel's office address. See ECF No. 35. Counsel has indicated he has not been authorized to accept service of process on Defendant Ottenbacher's behalf. See Id.
Because service of process directed to Ottenbacher has been returned unexecuted, Plaintiff must provide additional information to serve this defendant. Plaintiff shall promptly seek such information through discovery, the California Public Records Act, Cal. Gov't. Code § 6250, et seq., or other means available to Plaintiff. If access to the required information is denied or unreasonably delayed, Plaintiff may seek judicial intervention. Once additional information sufficient to effect service is obtained, Plaintiff shall notify the Court whereupon Plaintiff will be forwarded the forms necessary for service by the U.S. Marshal. Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to effect service may result in the dismissal of unserved defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).
While service of process was also returned unexecuted as to Defendant Nguyen, see ECF No. 32, Defendant Nguyen previously appeared in the action by way of an answer, see ECF No. 20.
The Court will re-set an initial schedule for this litigation following resolution of Plaintiffs motion for leave to amend, ECF No. 38, which will be addressed separately.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff s motions, ECF No. 28 and 37, for the Court to effect service of Process on Defendant Ottenbacher are denied; and
2. Plaintiff shall promptly seek additional information sufficient to effect service on any unserved defendants and notify the Court once such information is ascertained.