Jones v. Madden
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Todd W. Robinson (author)
Analysis
The court addressed a situation where its Order to Show Cause regarding failure to effect service was returned undeliverable because the pro se plaintiff had been transferred to a new prison without updating his address of record. The court ordered the Clerk to update the plaintiff's address and re-serve the Order, extended the deadline to respond, and warned that failure to respond or show good cause for the delay in service would result in dismissal without prejudice.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Order directing Clerk to update plaintiff's address of record and re-serve the September 21, 2023 Order to Show Cause.“In light of Plaintiff’s relocation to a different facility, the Clerk of the Court SHALL UPDATE Plaintiff’s address on the docket and SHALL RE-SERVE Plaintiff with the Court’s September 21, 2023 Order to Show Cause (ECF No. 12).” | agree with court The court correctly identified that the plaintiff's address of record was outdated based on the public inmate locator and the returned mail. Updating the address and re-serving the order is a standard administrative and procedural step to ensure due process and proper notice to the pro se litigant. |
Extension of time for plaintiff to respond to the Order to Show Cause.“The Court also EXTENDS Plaintiff’s time to respond to the Court’s Order to Show Cause as follows: No later than thirty (30) days from the date of this Order, Plaintiff must SHOW CAUSE why his Complaint should not be dismissed for failure timely to effect service of process pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) and Civil Local Rule 4.1(b).” | agree with court Extending the deadline is appropriate because the original deadline was likely calculated from the date the order was mailed (or served), which was ineffective due to the address error. Giving the plaintiff a new 30-day window from the date of this order ensures he has a fair opportunity to respond once properly served. |
Warning that failure to respond or show good cause will result in dismissal without prejudice.“If Plaintiff fails adequately to respond to the Court’s Order to Show Cause (ECF No. 12) within the time provided in this Order, the Court will enter a final order of dismissal without prejudice for failure timely to effect service pursuant to Rule 4(m) and Civil Local Rule 4.1 and for failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, this District’s Civil Local Rules, and this Court’s Order pursuant to Civil Local Rules 41.1(b) and &3.1(a).” | agree with court The court correctly applies Rule 4(m), which requires service within 90 days (or 60 days if the defendant is the United States) unless good cause is shown. The court properly informs the plaintiff that he must show 'good cause' or 'excusable neglect' to extend the time limit. Dismissal without prejudice is the standard remedy for failure to effect service within the time limit. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly identifies the issue (undeliverable mail due to outdated address), uses appropriate judicial notice of public records to find the current address, and applies the correct rules (Rule 4(m), Rule 6(b), and local rules) to manage the case. The court provides the plaintiff with a fair opportunity to respond and shows good cause for the delay in service before dismissing. The reasoning is clear and directly addresses the procedural hurdle.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 LARRY JONES, Jr., CDCR #BI-0619, Case No.: 22-CV-1814 TWR (KSC)
12 Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO 13 v. UPDATE PLAINTIFF’S ADDRESS OF RECORD AND TO RE-SERVE 14 RAYMOND MADDEN; KATHLEEN PLAINTIFF WITH COURT’S ALLISON; KRISTIN HAAS; J. 15 SEPTEMBER 21, 2023 ORDER FOR SALAZAR; C. TAYLOR; J. LUGO; and PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE 16 DOCTOR ENFIELD, WHY THIS ACTION SHOULD NOT 17 Defendants. BE DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO EFFECT SERVICE 18 19 (ECF Nos. 12, 13) 20 21 On September 21, 2023, this Court issued an Order for Plaintiff to Show Cause Why 22 This Action Should Not Be Dismissed for Failure to Effect Service and granted Plaintiff 23 thirty days to file a response. (ECF No. 12 (“OSC”) at 2–3.) The Court’s order was mailed 24 to Plaintiff on September 21, 2023, and returned as undeliverable on October 17, 2023, 25 bearing the handwritten abbreviation “COR.” (See generally ECF Nos. 12–13.) 26 When Plaintiff filed his Complaint, he was housed at California State Prison, 27 Lancaster. (ECF No. 1 (“Compl.”) at 1.) On January 20, 2023, Plaintiff filed a Notice of 28 Change of Address advising that he had been moved to California State Prison, Los 1 Angeles County “Z ASU.” (ECF No. 9 at 2.) From the Court’s review of the California 2 inmate locator, Plaintiff is now housed at California State Prison, Corcoran. See CDCR 3 Inmate Locator, https://inmatelocator.cdcr.ca.gov/Results.aspx (last visited Oct. 18, 2023); 4 see also Mitchell v. Ryer, No. 23-CV-661-TWR-MSB, 2023 WL 5354156, at *1 n.1 (S.D. 5 Cal. Aug. 21, 2023) (taking judicial notice of public record available on online inmate 6 locator and noting plaintiff had been transferred to different prison); McCoy v. Le, No. 21- 7 CV-1755-BAS-LL, 2021 WL 5449004, at *1 n.2 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 22, 2021) (noting the 8 court may take judicial notice of public records available on online inmate locators). As 9 of the date of this Order, Plaintiff has not filed a notice of change of address as required. 10 See S.D. Cal. Civ. L.R. 83.11(b). The Court reminds Plaintiff that, “[i]f mail directed to a 11 pro se plaintiff by the Clerk at the plaintiff’s last designated address is returned by the Post 12 Office, and if such plaintiff fails to notify the Court and opposing parties within 60 days 13 thereafter of the plaintiff’s current address, the Court may dismiss the action without 14 prejudice for failure to prosecute.” Id. 15 In light of Plaintiff’s relocation to a different facility, the Clerk of the Court SHALL 16 UPDATE Plaintiff’s address on the docket and SHALL RE-SERVE Plaintiff with the 17 Court’s September 21, 2023 Order to Show Cause (ECF No. 12). The Court also 18 EXTENDS Plaintiff’s time to respond to the Court’s Order to Show Cause as follows: No 19 later than thirty (30) days from the date of this Order, Plaintiff must SHOW CAUSE why 20 his Complaint should not be dismissed for failure timely to effect service of process 21 pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) and Civil Local Rule 4.1(b). Should 22 Plaintiff wish to proceed in this matter, Plaintiff SHALL FILE a motion for leave to effect 23 service of process outside of the ninety-day service limit. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) 24 (requiring a showing of “good cause”); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B) (requiring a showing of 25 “excusable neglect”). If Plaintiff fails adequately to respond to the Court’s Order to Show 26 Cause (ECF No. 12) within the time provided in this Order, the Court will enter a final 27 order of dismissal without prejudice for failure timely to effect service pursuant to Rule 28 4(m) and Civil Local Rule 4.1 and for failure to comply with the Federal Rules of Civil 1 || Procedure, this District’s Civil Local Rules, and this Court’s Order pursuant to Civil Local 2 || Rules 41.1(b) and &3.1(a). 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 || Dated: October 20, 2023 —_—— 5 Oo) (2 D re 6 Honorable Todd W. Robinson 4 United States District Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28