The opinion
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-EGC (PC)
12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO
DISMISS DEFENDANT FEZE WITHOUT
13 v. PREJUDICE PURSUANT TO RULE 4 OF
THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL
14 AMANDEEP JOHAL, et al., PROCEDURE
15 Defendants. 14-DAY OBJECTION PERIOD
16
17 Plaintiff Lamar Paschall is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights
18 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
19 I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND
20 On January 13, 2026, the Court issued its Order Finding Service Appropriate as to Newly
21 Identified Defendants. (Doc. 37.) Specifically, it ordered the United States Marshal (USM) to
22 serve Defendants Ludovic Feze and S. Prasad. (Id. at 1-2.)
23 On January 16, 2026, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
24 (CDCR) filed its notice of intent to waive service as to Defendant Prasad but filed a notice of
25 intent not to waive service as to Defendant Feze. (See Docs. 39 & 40[sealed].)
26 On January 20, 2026, the USM filed a summons returned unexecuted as to Defendant
27 Feze. (Doc. 41.) The filing indicates CDCR was unable to identify Feze and that an open search
and a Department of Consumer Affairs search for Ludovic Feze revealed no results. (Id.)
1 On January 22, 2026, the Court issued its Order to Show Cause (OSC) Why Defendant
2 Feze Should Not Be Dismissed from this Action for a Failure to Provide Sufficient Information to
3 Effectuate Service. (Doc. 42.) Specifically, Plaintiff was advised of his obligation pursuant to
4 Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to provide accurate and sufficient information
5 to effectuate service of process and was provided 30 days within which respond to the OSC or to
6 provide additional information concerning the identity and location of Defendant Feze. (Id. at 2-
7 5.)
8 On March 2, 2026, Plaintiff filed a response to the OSC. (Doc. 47.)
9 On March 9, 2026, the Court issued its Order Discharging Order to Show Cause and
10 Order Directing Defendants to Inquire as to the Identity and Location of Ludovic Feze as
11 Referenced in Plaintiff’s Medical Record and/or in the Physical Description Provided and to File
12 a Status Report Within 14 Days. (Doc. 48.)
13 On March 23, 2026, Defendants filed a status report. (Doc. 52.) Briefly, Defendants
14 reported Feze was not employed by CDCR, but likely with a “non-network agency” or provider,
15 that a search of the Board of Vocational Nursing and Psychiatric Technicians revealed no results,
16 and that CDCR’s headquarters litigation coordinator was unable to identify Feze’s employer or a
17 last known address for Feze. (Id.)
18 On March 26, 2026, the Court issued its Order Following Defendants’ Status Report.
19 (Doc. 53.) Relevant here, Plaintiff was granted 30 days within which to obtain and provide a
20 current address for Defendant Feze. (Id. at 2-3.)
21 More than 30 days have passed yet Plaintiff has failed to provide accurate and sufficient
22 information to effect service of process on Defendant Feze.
23 II. DISCUSSION
24 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide as follows:
25 If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed,
the court—on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—must
26 dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order
that service be made within a specified time. But if the plaintiff
27 shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for
service for an appropriate period.
1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).
2 In cases involving a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis, a United States Marshal, upon
3 order of the court, shall serve the summons and the complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3). “[A]
4 prisoner ‘is entitled to rely on the U.S. Marshal for service’ ... as long as he or she ‘provide[s] the
5 necessary information to help effectuate service.’” Schrubb v. Lopez, 617 Fed. Appx. 832, 832
6 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Puett v. Blandford, 912 F.2d 270, 275 (9th Cir. 1990), abrogated on other
7 grounds by Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472 (1995)). “So long as the prisoner has furnished the
8 information necessary to identify the defendant, the marshal's failure to effect service is
9 ‘automatically good cause....’” Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994) (quoting
10 Sellers v. United States, 902 F.2d 598, 603 (7th Cir. 1990)), overruled on other grounds by
11 Sandin, 515 U.S. at 483-84). However, where a pro se plaintiff fails to provide the Marshal with
12 accurate and sufficient information to effect service of the summons and complaint, the Court's
13 sua sponte dismissal of the unserved defendants is appropriate. Walker, 14 F.3d at 1421-22.
14 Here, Plaintiff has failed to provide the USM with accurate and sufficient information to
15 effect service of process of Defendant Feze or to otherwise respond to the Court’s March 26,
16 2026, order. It does not appear that granting Plaintiff additional time within which to locate
17 Defendant Feze would result in the submission of the requested information.
18 Because Plaintiff was previously advised that his failure to provide the necessary
19 information would result in a dismissal for his failure to serve process pursuant to Rule 4(m) of
20 the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (see Docs. 42 at 5 & 53 at 3), the undersigned finds that
21 Defendant Feze should be dismissed from this action without prejudice. Walker, 14 F.3d at 1421-
22 22.
23 III. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
24 Accordingly, for the reasons given above, the Court RECOMMENDS Defendant Feze be
25 DISMISSED from the action without prejudice.
26 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District
27 Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days
1 | objections with the Court. Local Rule 304(b). The document should be captioned, “Objections to
2 | Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations” and shall not exceed fifteen (15) pages
3 | without leave of Court and good cause shown. The Court will not consider exhibits attached to
4 | the Objections. To the extent a party wishes to refer to any exhibit(s), the party should reference
5 || the exhibit in the record by its CM/ECF document and page number, when possible, or otherwise
6 || reference the exhibit with specificity. Any pages filed in excess of the fifteen (15) page limitation
7 || may be disregarded by the District Judge when reviewing these Findings and Recommendations
8 | under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). A party’s failure to file any objections within the specified time
9 | may result in the waiver of certain rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th
10 Cir. 2014).
1]
D IT IS SO ORDERED. .
13 | Dated: _ May 5, 2026 Cu iy du Gxllo
14 UNITED STATES MWGISTRATE JUDGE
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28