1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SHAWN ARLIN DONLEY, No. 1:23-cv-01740-KES-SAB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDING DISMISSAL OF 13 v. DEFENDANTS 14 WELLPATH, et al.,

15 Defendants.

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

. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s Monell claims against Wellpath and County of 19 Madera, and deliberate indifference claims against Chief Manuel Perez, Sheriff Tyson Pogue, 20 Sergeant Khela, Sergeant Quick, Corporal Garza, Corporal Townsend, Sergeant Villanuava, Dr. 21 Gustavian, Medina, Debbie, Eva, Michelle, Maria, Chloe, Alejandra, Victoria, Libby, and Jane 22 Doe. (ECF No. 23.) 23 Here, the U.S. Marshal attempted to serve Defendants Alejandra, Chloe, and Libby with 24 the information that Plaintiff provided. However, the Marshal was informed that Defendants 25 Alejandra, Chloe, and Libby are no longer employed by the Madera County Jail and no 26 forwarding addresses were provided for these Defendants. (ECF No. 38.) 27 On November 4, 2025, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why Defendants 28 1 Alejandra, Chloe and Libby should not be dismissed for failure to provide sufficient information 2 to effectuate service. (ECF No. 46.) 3 I. 4 DISCUSSION 5 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4:

6 If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court “on motion 7 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 8 shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period. 9 Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). 10 In cases involving a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis, the Marshal, upon order of the 11 court, shall serve the summons and the complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2). “[A]n incarcerated pro 12 se plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis is entitled to rely on the U.S. Marshal for service of the 13 summons and complaint and ... should not be penalized by having his action dismissed for failure 14 to effect service where the U.S. Marshal or the court clerk has failed to perform his duties.” Walker 15 v. Sumner,

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

(9th 16 Cir. 1990)), abrogated on other grounds by Sandin v. Connor,

(1995). “So long as the 17 prisoner has furnished the information necessary to identify the defendant, the marshal's failure to 18 effect service is ‘automatically good cause....’ ” Walker,

(quoting Sellers v. United 19 States,

(7th Cir. 1990)). However, where a pro se plaintiff fails to provide the 20 Marshal with accurate and sufficient information to effect service of the summons and complaint, 21 the court's sua sponte dismissal of the unserved defendants is appropriate. Walker,

- 22 22. 23 Because the USM has not been successful in locating Defendants Alejandra, Chloe, and 24 Libby pursuant to Rule 4(m), the Court provided Plaintiff with an opportunity to show cause why 25 these Defendants should not be dismissed from this action for failure to serve process. (ECF No. 26 46.) However, Plaintiff has failed to respond to the Court’s order to show cause why these 27 Defendants should not be dismissed and the time to do so has passed. At this juncture, the United 28 1 | States Marshal’s office has exhausted the avenues available to it in attempting to locate and serve 2 | Defendants Alejandra, Chloe, and Libby. It is Plaintiff's obligation to proceed information 3 | necessary to identify and locate a given defendant—which Plaintiff has not done and is apparently 4 | unable to do. Accordingly, dismissal of Defendants Alejandra, Chloe, and Libby for failure to 5 || serve is warranted. 6 Il. 7 RECOMMENDATION 8 Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Defendants Alejandra, 9 | Chloe, and Libby be dismissed from the action, without prejudice, pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the 10 || Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 11 This Findings and Recommendation will be submitted to the United States District Judge 12 || assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of

(b)(1). Within fourteen (14) 13 | days after being served with this Findings and Recommendation, Plaintiff may file written 14 | objections with the Court, limited to 15 pages in length, including exhibits. The document should 15 | be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.” Plaintiff is 16 || advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on 17 | appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler,

(9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 18 | F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. DAA Le 21 | Dated: _December 5, 2025 _ ef STANLEY A. BOONE 22 United States Magistrate Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28