1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KARLIS RUBEN AUGUSTUS HOWARD, No. 1:24-cv-01335-KES-SAB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF 13 v. DEFENDANTS REYES AND RIOS 14 CDCR, et al., (ECF No. 19)

15 Defendants.

16 17 Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action filed pursuant to 42

. On June 3, 2025, the Court ordered electronic service of Plaintiff’s complaint on 19 Defendants T. Lee, Rios, T. Perez, Reyes, and Harter. (ECF No. 13.) 20 On July 8, 2025, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation returned a 21 notice of intent to not waive service of process as to Defendants Reyes and Rios. (ECF No. 17.) 22 Thereafter, service was forwarded to the United States Marshal (USM) who returned the 23 summonses as unexecuted with notation that the Litigation Coordinator indicated there are 24 multiple officers with the last names Reyes and Rios and more information is necessary to 25 identify these individuals. (ECF No. 18.) 26 /// 27 /// 28 1 I. 2 DISCUSSION 3 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4:

4 If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court “on motion 5 or on its own after notice to the plaintiff” must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time. But if the plaintiff 6 shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period. 7 Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). 8 In cases involving a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis, the Marshal, upon order of the 9 court, shall serve the summons and the complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2). “[A]n incarcerated pro 10 se plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis is entitled to rely on the U.S. Marshal for service of the 11 summons and complaint and ... should not be penalized by having his action dismissed for failure 12 to effect service where the U.S. Marshal or the court clerk has failed to perform his duties.” Walker 13 v. Sumner,

(9th Cir. 1994) (quoting Puett v. Blandford,

(9th 14 Cir. 1990)), abrogated on other grounds by Sandin v. Connor,

(1995). “So long as the 15 prisoner has furnished the information necessary to identify the defendant, the marshal's failure to 16 effect service is ‘automatically good cause....’ ” Walker,

(quoting Sellers v. United 17 States,

(7th Cir. 1990)). However, where a pro se plaintiff fails to provide the 18 Marshal with accurate and sufficient information to effect service of the summons and complaint, 19 the court's sua sponte dismissal of the unserved defendants is appropriate. Walker,

- 20 22. 21 Because the USM has not been successful in locating Defendants Reyes and Rios, pursuant 22 to Rule 4(m), the Court provided Plaintiff with an opportunity to show cause why these Defendants 23 should not be dismissed from this action for failure to serve process. (ECF No. 19.) However, 24 Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Court’s order to show cause why Defendants Reyes and Rios 25 should not be dismissed and the time to do so has passed. At this juncture, the United States 26 Marshal’s office has exhausted the avenues available to it in attempting to locate and serve 27 Defendants Reyes and Rios. It is Plaintiff’s obligation to proceed information necessary to identify 28 1 | and locate a given defendant—which Plaintiff has not done and is apparently unable to do. 2 | Accordingly, dismissal of Defendants Reyes and Rios for failure to serve is warranted. 3 Il. 4 RECOMMENDATION 5 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Defendants Reyes and Rios 6 | be dismissed from the action, without prejudice, pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil 7 | Procedure. 8 This Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge 9 | assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of

(b)(). Within fourteen (14) 10 | days after being served with this Findings and Recommendation, Plaintiff may file written 11 | objections with the Court, limited to 15 pages in length, including exhibits. The document should 12 || be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Plaintiff is 13 || advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on 14 | appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler,

(9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 15 | F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAM Le 18 | Dated: _ August 22, 2025 STANLEY A. BOONE 19 United States Magistrate Judge 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28