1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 RONALD F. MARTINEZ, Case No. 19-cv-03608-HSG

8 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO EFFECT SERVICE ON DEFENDANT 9 v. SANDOVAL

10 S. HATTON, et al., 11 Defendants.

12 13 Plaintiff, an inmate at Corcoran State Prison in Corcoran, California, filed this pro se civil 14 rights action against Salinas Valley State Prison (“SVSP”) correctional officials pursuant to 42

. On July 2, 2020, the Court found that the first amended complaint stated a 16 cognizable Eighth Amendment claim against defendants W. L. Muniz, Warden Hatton, Associate 17 Warden Victor Solis, Chief Deputy Warden T. Foss, business services administrator K. Green, 18 sergeant Cermeno, acting CSW P.L. Vasquez, sergeant Obodozie, sergeant Banger, correctional 19 plant supervisor Jim Johnson, correctional plant manager II Sam Ochoa, building trades supervisor 20 D. Mendez, building trades manager S. Sandoval, and carpenter III T. Vaughn, and issued an order 21 of service. Dkt. No. 15. On July 9, 2020, the United States Marshal filed an unexecuted service 22 of summons for building trades manager S. Sandoval, stating that the California Department of 23 Corrections and Rehabilitation has no record of an employee by this name or title. Dkt. No. 20. 24 A plaintiff who is incarcerated and proceeding in forma pauperis may rely on service by 25 the Marshal, but such plaintiff “may not remain silent and do nothing to effectuate such service;” 26 rather, “[a]t a minimum, a plaintiff should request service upon the appropriate defendant and 27 attempt to remedy any apparent defects of which [he] has knowledge.” Rochon v. Dawson, 828 1 90 days is subject to dismissal without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 44m). 2 Plaintiff has not provided sufficient information to allow the Marshal to locate and serve 3 || defendant Sandoval, and the amended complaint was filed on May 4, 2020. Consequently, 4 || plaintiff must remedy the situation or face dismissal of Sandoval without prejudice. See Walker v. 5 || Sumner,

(9th Cir. 1994) (holding prisoner failed to show cause why prison 6 || official should not be dismissed under Rule 4(m) where prisoner failed to show he had provided 7 Marshal with sufficient information to effectuate service). 8 Accordingly, within twenty-eight (28) days of this order, Plaintiff must effect service on 9 defendant Sandoval, or submit to the Court sufficient information to identify and locate defendant 10 Sandoval such that the Marshal is able to effect service. Failure to comply with the deadline set 11 forth in this order will result in dismissal of the unserved defendant without prejudice 12 pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. |} Dated: 7/21/2020 8 15 Alper 3 bbl) HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR. = 16 United States District Judge

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28