1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LAMAR PASCHALL, Case No.: 1:24-cv-00154-JLT-SKO 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY DEFENDANT SINCLAIR OR ST. CLAIR 13 v. SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FROM THIS ACTION FOR A FAILURE TO PROVIDE 14 AMANDEEP JOHAL, et al., SUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO 15 Defendants. EFFECTUATE SERVICE

16 30-DAY DEADLINE

17

18 19 Plaintiff Lamar Paschall is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 20 action pursuant to

. 21 I. INTRODUCTION 22 On June 5, 2025, the Court issued its Order Finding Service Appropriate. (Doc. 18.) The 23 Court ordered the United States Marshal (USM) to serve Defendants “Law Fu, M.D.,” “Smith, 24 M.D.,” and “Sinclair, M.D.,” allegedly employed at the Sierra Conservation Center (SCC) in 25 Jamestown. (Id. at 1-2.) 26 On June 9, 2025, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) 27 filed its notice of intent to waive service as to Defendants Fu and Smith. (Doc. 20 [sealed].) That same date, CDCR filed a notice of intent not to waive service as to Defendant Sinclair. (Doc. 21 1 [sealed].) CDCR indicated it was “Unable to Identify” the individual identified as “Sinclair, 2 M.D.” (Id.)1 3 On August 7, 2025, Defendants Fu and Smith filed an answer to the operative complaint. 4 (Doc. 24.)2 5 On September 30, 2025, the USM filed a summons returned unexecuted, (Doc. 28), after 6 attempting to serve “Dr. Jack St. Clair”3 at “47 Santa Rosa Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405,” 7 on September 23, 2025. (Id. at 1.) The USM was advised by the “Front Desk Clerk … Buffie 8 Wilson” at that location that “no employee or doctor” with that name was employed there. (Id. at 9 1-2.) 10 II. DISCUSSION 11 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) provides as follows:

12 If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court— 13 on motion 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 14 specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period. 15 16 Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). 17 In cases involving a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis, the Marshal, upon order of the 18 court, shall serve the summons and the complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3). “[A]n incarcerated pro 19 se plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis is entitled to rely on the U.S. Marshal for service of the 20 summons and complaint, and . . . should not be penalized by having his or her action dismissed 21 for failure to effect service where the U.S. Marshal or the court clerk has failed to perform the 22

23 1 Because the CDCR did not waive service on behalf of this individual, the Clerk of the Court provided the USM with a copy of the first amended complaint and the summons for service of process. (See Doc. 18 at 24 3.)

25 2 On September 15, 2025, the Court vacated its Findings and Recommendations to Dismiss Jane and John Doe Defendants and granted Plaintiff an additional 90 days within which to identify these Doe defendants. 26 (See Doc. 27.) Plaintiff is to “discover the identities of the Doe defendants and to file a notice of substitution” no later than December 15, 2025. 27 3 The USM learned the physician named in Plaintiff’s operative complaint likely bears the surname “St. Clair” versus “Sinclair.” 1 duties required of each of them . . ..” Puett v. Blandford,

(9th Cir. 1990). 2 “So long as the prisoner has furnished the information necessary to identify the defendant, the 3 marshal’s failure to effect service is ‘automatically good cause . . ..’” Walker v. Sumner,

1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994), abrogated on other grounds by Sandin v. Connor,

(1995). However, where a pro se plaintiff fails to provide the USM with accurate and sufficient 6 information to effect service of the summons and complaint, the Court’s sua sponte dismissal of 7 the unserved defendant is appropriate. Walker, 14 F.3d at 1421-22. 8 Here, the USM has attempted to serve Jack St. Clair at an address associated with that 9 individual without success. Plaintiff identified Defendant “Sinclair” as a physician employed at 10 SCC in Jamestown, California, in March 2021. (See Doc. 12 at 3 & Doc. 18 at 2.) The CDCR 11 advised it was unable to identify any individual by that name. Further, although the USM learned 12 “Sinclair, M.D.” was likely Jack St. Clair, M.D., the address at which the USM attempted service 13 was not accurate and/or is no longer current. Dr. St. Clair could not be located at the address in 14 San Luis Obispo. 15 Based on the foregoing, the Court finds Plaintiff has failed to provide the USM with 16 accurate and sufficient information to effect service of the summons and complaint on “Sinclair, 17 M.D.” or Dr. St. Clair. Walker, 14 F.3d at 1421-22. If Plaintiff is unable to provide the USM with 18 the necessary information to locate this individual, Defendant “Sinclair” shall be dismissed from 19 this action, without prejudice, pursuant to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 20 In sum, it is Plaintiff’s obligation to provide the USM with accurate and sufficient 21 information to effect service of process. Walker, 14 F.3d at 1421-22; see also, e.g., Lear v. 22 Navarro, No. 1:21-cv-00600-DAD-BAM (PC),

, at *2 (E.D. Cal. July 19, 23 2022) (“as the Marshal has already attempted to serve Defendant Plata with the information that 24 was provided, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not provided sufficient information to identify and 25 locate Defendant Plata for service of process. To the extent Plaintiff requests that the Court order 26 [CDCR] Defendants or defense counsel to provide such information directly to the Court, by 27 order or by email, the Court declines to do so”); Steward v. Igbinosa, No. 1:18-cv-00551-AWI- 1 provide the Court with updated contact information for the defendant; because plaintiff had “no 2 other information that can be used to locate Defendant Nelson, and as the Marshal has already 3 attempted to serve Defendant Nelson with the information provided, the Court finds that Plaintiff 4 has not provided sufficient information to identify and locate Defendant Nelson for service of 5 process”). And it is not the USM’s responsibility to locate Defendant Sinclair or St. Clair. See, 6 e.g., Heredia v. Lawrence, No. 17cv1560-LAB (LL),

, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 7 25, 2019) (plaintiff suggested burden of locating defendants should “be on the USMS or the 8 Court” but it is plaintiff’s responsibility to provide the necessary information and the “USMS 9 does its best to effect service as instructed, but it does not have the ability to track down every 10 defendant named in a complaint if the information provided by the plaintiff is faulty”). Nor does 11 that burden fall on or extend to the Court. See Heredia,

, at *2; Harbridge v. 12 Hall, Lee, and Tucker, No. 1:10-cv-00473-DAD-JLT (PC),

, at *5 (E.D. Cal. 13 May 5, 2017) (same). 14 Pursuant to Rule 4(m), the Court will provide Plaintiff with the opportunity to show cause 15 why Defendant “Sinclair” should not be dismissed from the action at this time. Plaintiff may 16 respond to this order by providing additional information that will assist the USM in locating 17 Defendant “Sinclair” or Dr. St. Clair for service of process. 18 III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER 19 Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that: 20 1. Within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall show cause 21 why Defendant “Sinclair” should not be dismissed from this action. Plaintiff may do so by 22 providing additional information concerning Defendant “Sinclair” or Dr. St. Clair’s 23 current location; and 24 2. Plaintiff is advised the failure to respond to this order will result in a 25 recommendation to dismiss any unidentified defendant from this action due to 26 Plaintiff’s failure to serve process pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). 27 IT IS SO ORDERED. 1 Dated: November 5, 2025 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto . 2 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27