1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CUONG HUY DAO, Case No. 1:25-cv-00970-HBK (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY DEFENDANTS A. GUTIERREZ AND M. 13 v. LOPEZ SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED FROM THIS ACTION FOR FAILURE TO 14 M. BRAVO, et al., PROVIDE SUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO EFFECTUATE SERVICE 15 Defendants. SIXTY (60) DAY DEADLINE 16 17 Plaintiff Chong Huy Dao (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 18 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to

. This action proceeds against on 19 Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment excessive use of force claims against Defendants M. Bravo, J. 20 Rivera, J. Perez, A. Heredia, Devila, Medina, A. Gutierrez, M. Lopez, Rodrigo, and two 21 Unidentified Correctional Officers, and Eighth Amendment medical deliberate indifference 22 claims against Defendants LVN Reyes, RN Callejo, and Dr. Kongara. 23 On September 15, 2025, the Court issued an order directing service on Defendants under 24 the Court’s E-Service pilot program for civil rights cases for the Eastern District of California. 25 (Doc. No. 11). The order included the following information regarding Defendants A. Gutierrez 26 and M. Lopez: “Correctional Officer, North Kern State Prison. (Id. at 2:14-15.) On September 27 15, 2025 and November 18, 2025, the Court received information that Defendants A. Gutierrez 28 and M. Lopez could not be identified for service. (Doc. Nos. 11-1, 19). 1 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) provides as follows:

2 If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court— 3 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 4 specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period. 5 6 Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). 7 In cases involving a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis, the Marshal, upon order of the 8 court, shall serve the summons and the complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3). “[A]n incarcerated pro 9 se plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis is entitled to rely on the U.S. Marshal for service of the 10 summons and complaint, and . . . should not be penalized by having his or her action dismissed 11 for failure to effect service where the U.S. Marshal or the court clerk has failed to perform the 12 duties required of each of them . . . .” Puett v. Blandford,

(9th Cir. 1990). “So 13 long as the prisoner has furnished the information necessary to identify the defendant, the 14 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,

, 115 16 (1995). However, where a pro se plaintiff fails to provide the Marshal with accurate and 17 sufficient information to effect service of the summons and complaint, the Court’s sua sponte 18 dismissal of the unserved defendant is appropriate. Walker, 14 F.3d at 1421–22. 19 Here, the U.S. Marshal attempted to electronically serve Defendants A. Gutierrez and M. 20 Lopez with the information that Plaintiff provided. However, the Marshal was informed that 21 there was not enough information to identify either Defendant for service of process. Further 22 efforts by the Marshal were also unsuccessful. If Plaintiff is unable to provide the Marshal with 23 the necessary information to identify and locate these Defendants, Defendants A. Gutierrez and 24 M. Lopez shall be dismissed from this action, without prejudice. 25 Pursuant to Rule 4(m), the Court will provide Plaintiff with the opportunity to show cause 26 why Defendants A. Gutierrez and M. Lopez should not be dismissed from the action at this time. 27 Plaintiff may respond to this order by providing additional information that will assist the 28 Marshal in identifying Defendants A. Gutierrez and M. Lopez for service of process. For 1 | example, Plaintiff may provide an approximate date for the incident at issue, a building number or 2 | facility where the incident took place, or other identifying physical features for Defendants A. 3 | Gutierrez and M. Lopez. 4 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED: 5 1. Within sixty (60) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall show cause 6 why Defendants A. Gutierrez and M. Lopez should not be dismissed from this action; and 7 2. The failure to respond to this order or the failure to show cause will result in the dismissal 8 of any unidentified and unserved defendant from this action, due to Plaintiff's failure to 9 serve process pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). 10 Dated: _ December 5, 2025 oo. Zh. Bareh Zack 12 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28