Stuckey v. Risenhoover
- Gonzalez Rogers
- 4:19-cv-03780
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Stuckey v. Risenhoover, Judge Gonzalez Rogers ordered Stuckey to provide addresses for two unserved defendants or face dismissal of claims against them without prejudice.
Andre Kenneth Stuckey, Dr. Maria Bostanjian, and Dr. Devinder Kumar. Stuckey was required to provide current addresses for Bostanjian and Kumar within 28 days; otherwise, the claims against those two defendants would be dismissed without prejudice.
What happened
Stuckey v. Risenhoover concerns unsuccessful attempts to serve Dr. Maria Bostanjian and Dr. Devinder Kumar. The court was told that Pelican Bay State Prison could not accept service for them.
The court said Stuckey had to provide current addresses for both defendants so service could be completed. It gave him 28 days to provide those addresses and directed him to review the federal discovery rules for help finding them.
Judge Gonzalez Rogers ordered that, if Stuckey did not provide the addresses within 28 days, all claims against Bostanjian and Kumar would be dismissed without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). The order did not dismiss those claims at that time.
The detailed version
- Stuckey v. Risenhoover · No. 4:19-cv-03780
- Gonzalez Rogers
- Mar. 9, 2020
Background
This order addresses service of process—the formal delivery of a lawsuit's summons and complaint—on Dr. Maria Bostanjian and Dr. Devinder Kumar. Service had been ineffective because Pelican Bay State Prison did not have authorization to accept service for those defendants.
The opinion states that Andre Kenneth Stuckey was proceeding under a fee-waiver status. It explains that, although a plaintiff may rely on the United States Marshal or request that a defendant waive formal service, the plaintiff cannot remain silent after learning that service has failed. The plaintiff must try to correct known problems with service.
Order
The court ordered Stuckey to provide the court with a current address for Bostanjian and Kumar no later than 28 days from the date of the order. It directed him to review Rules 26 through 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for guidance about determining the defendants' current addresses.
The court stated that, if Stuckey failed to provide the addresses within the 28-day deadline, all claims against Bostanjian and Kumar would be dismissed without prejudice under Rule 4(m). The order itself did not dismiss those claims. This is a procedural order concerning service, not a decision on the underlying claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.