Young

1

2

3

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

7 DARRYL MAURICE YOUNG, Case No. 26-cv-02860-TSH

8 Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

9 v. PROVIDE SERVICE INSTRUCTIONS

AND DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO

10 SAN FRANCISCO HOUSING PROVIDE SERVICE ADDRESS

AUTHORITY, et al.,

11

Defendants.

12

13 On April 3, 2026, the Court granted Plaintiff Darryl Maurice Young’s application to

14 proceed in forma pauperis, screened his original complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), and

15 directed service on Defendant San Francisco Housing Authority. ECF No. 7. Plaintiff

16 subsequently filed an amended complaint that adds Avalonbay Communities, Inc. as a defendant.

17 ECF No. 15. After screening the amended complaint, the Clerk of Court directed the United

18 States Marshal Service (USMS) to serve a copy of the case file upon Avalonbay. ECF No. 22.

19 On May 14, 2026, USMS provided an unexecuted service of process notice, stating they

20 were unable to locate the company because there was no one at the leasing office address provided

21 and there was no access to a controlled building. ECF No. 26. Plaintiff responded by filing a

22 “Motion to Direct the Clerk of Court to Provide Specific Service Instructions to the United States

23 Marshal Service.” ECF No. 27. Plaintiff requests the Court direct USMS to attempt service at the

24 same address (1200 Ocean Avenue, San Francisco, California 94112), but this time require USMS

25 to telephone “Rommel Santo Domingo, Sales and Service Supervisor” to prearrange a service time

26 between 9:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Tuesday through Friday.

27 In cases involving plaintiffs proceeding in forma pauperis, the “officers of the court shall

1 Marshal to effect service. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3). If the Marshal is unable to effectuate service

2 through no fault of their own, e.g., because the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient information or

3 because the defendant is not where the plaintiff claims, and the plaintiff is informed, he must seek

4 to remedy the situation or face dismissal. See Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1421-22 (9th Cir.

5 1994), abrogated on other grounds by Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995).

6 Here, Plaintiff has provided an address for service at which USMS was unable to execute

7 service, so he now requests the Court direct USMS to call someone on certain days and times to

8 prearrange service at the same address. However, USMS has informed the Court that they do not

9 call anyone to attempt service, nor is the Court able to perform such a service. See Humes v.

10 Lukenbill, 2020 WL 6381387, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2020) (“Where the U.S. Marshal has

11 insufficient information to locate a person for purposes of service, the U.S. Marshal has no

12 additional duty under these circumstances to investigate where that person might be found.”)

13 (citing Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994), overruled on other grounds by,

14 Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995)); Allen v. Comm’r of Arizona State Prison, 2014 WL

15 2435685, at *3 (D. Ariz. May 30, 2014) (“The Court is not required to act as an investigative body

16 in ascertaining a correct address for Defendant.”); Brown v. Wachovia Bank, 244 F.R.D. 16, 19

17 (D.D.C. 2007) (“A district court has no duty to assist a plaintiff in locating a defendant’s address

18 for the purpose of service of process.”) (citing Barmes v. Nolan, 123 Fed. App’x 238, 239 (7th Cir.

19 2005)); Johnson v. Clark, 2013 WL 646022, at *5 (D. Ariz. Feb. 21, 2013) (“As an impartial

20 decisionmaker, it is not a federal judge’s role or responsibility to track down a defendant’s address

21 so a plaintiff may serve process. This degree of involvement ‘would undermine [trial] judges’ role

22 as impartial decisionmakers.’”) (alteration in original) (quoting Pliler v. Ford, 542 U.S. 225, 231

23 (2004)).

24 Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request and ORDERS him to provide an

25 address for service by June 5, 2026 at which USMS may effectuate service without the need for

26 prearranged appointments or further investigation. Failure to do so may result in dismissal of

27 Avalonbay Communities, Inc. without prejudice under Rule 4(m).

] Center, a free service offered by the Justice & Diversity Center of the Bar Association of San

2 || Francisco. You may request an appointment by emailing fedpro@sfbar.org or calling 415-782-

3 8982. At the Legal Help Center, you will be able to speak with an attorney who may be able to

4 || provide basic legal help but not representation. More information is available at

5 || https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/pro-se-litigants/.

6 Plaintiff may also wish to obtain a copy of this District’s Handbook for Litigants Without a

7 || Lawyer, which provides instructions on how to proceed at every stage of your case. The

8 || handbook is available in person at the Clerk’s Office and online at:

9 || https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/pro-se-litigants/.

10 IT IS SO ORDERED.

1]

a 12 Dated: May 19, 2026

a THOMAS S. HIXSON

14 United States Magistrate Judge

16

(17

Z 18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28