(PC) Coleman v. Sosa
1:21-cv-00825
E.D. Cal.Aug 5, 2021Background:
- Plaintiff Adam Coleman, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a § 1983 Eighth Amendment sexual-assault claim against defendant A. Sosa.
- The Court ordered service under the Eastern District of California E-Service pilot; the identifying information provided was: A. Sosa, correctional officer at Golden State Modified Community Correctional Facility on July 13, 2019.
- The U.S. Marshals Service could not effect electronic or personal service because it could not identify the correct A. Sosa: Kern County records showed an A. Sosa but of the opposite gender.
- The USMS filed a return of service unexecuted and reported it could not locate or identify the proper defendant with the information provided.
- The Court cited Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) and controlling Ninth Circuit precedent about a pro se, IFP plaintiff’s reliance on the Marshal for service.
- The Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause within 21 days why the action should not be recommended for dismissal without prejudice under Rule 4(m), or to provide additional identifying information or request a third-party subpoena.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to effect service warrants dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) | Coleman would argue he relied on the USMS and provided the identifying information he had. | USMS (and de facto defendant) contend Plaintiff's supplied information was insufficient to locate Sosa. | Court: Plaintiff must show cause; absence of sufficient info permits recommending dismissal under Rule 4(m). |
| Whether a pro se IFP plaintiff automatically has "good cause" when the Marshal fails to serve | Coleman can rely on Walker: if he furnished necessary identifying info, Marshal’s failure is good cause. | If plaintiff failed to provide accurate/sufficient information, dismissal is appropriate. | Court: Walker protects plaintiffs who supplied adequate info; here USMS could not identify Sosa from the info provided, so Plaintiff must cure or face dismissal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415 (9th Cir. 1994) (prisoner proceeding IFP may rely on U.S. Marshal for service; Marshal’s failure can constitute good cause if plaintiff furnished necessary information)
- Puett v. Blandford, 912 F.2d 270 (9th Cir. 1990) (similar discussion of Marshals’ duty to effect service for IFP prisoners)
- Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472 (1995) (overruled Walker on other grounds)
- Sellers v. United States, 902 F.2d 598 (7th Cir. 1990) (Marshals’ failure to effect service can establish good cause when plaintiff provided sufficient identifying information)