Bynum v. Sweet
- Beth Freeman
- 5:21-cv-05833
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Bynum v. Sweet, Judge Freeman ordered Bynum to provide information needed to serve Martin Laufik or face possible dismissal of those claims.
Jim Carter Bynum was ordered to provide more information so the United States Marshals Service could serve Martin Laufik. The claims against Laufik could be dismissed without prejudice if Bynum did not comply within 28 days.
What happened
In Bynum v. Sweet, Jim Carter Bynum, a California inmate, sued staff at the Correctional Training Facility under a federal civil-rights law. The court had ordered service on Martin Laufik, but the U.S. Marshals Service returned the summons without serving him because he no longer worked at the listed hospital.
The court ordered Bynum to file, within 28 days, a notice giving more information about Laufik’s current whereabouts so the Marshals Service could serve him. The order warned that Bynum’s claims against Laufik would be dismissed without prejudice if he did not provide the information.
Judge Beth Labson Freeman issued the order on April 29, 2022. The order directed Bynum to take this service-related step; it did not dismiss the claims against Laufik at that time.
The detailed version
- Bynum v. Sweet · No. 5:21-cv-05833
- Beth Freeman
- Apr. 29, 2022
Background
Jim Carter Bynum, an incarcerated plaintiff, filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against staff at the Correctional Training Facility. His amended complaint was the operative complaint. The court ordered service on Defendant Martin Laufik and directed Laufik to file a dispositive motion or notice concerning such a motion.
The Clerk issued a summons for service by the United States Marshals Service. The Marshals Service returned the summons unexecuted, stating that “Dr. Laufik does not work @ this hospital.” The court therefore found that Laufik had not been served.
Court’s order
The court explained that an incarcerated plaintiff proceeding without paying the filing fee may rely on service by the Marshals Service but must still request service and attempt to correct apparent problems with service. Because the complaint had been pending for more than 90 days, the claims against Laufik were subject to dismissal without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) unless Bynum showed good cause.
The court ordered Bynum to file a notice providing information about Laufik’s current whereabouts sufficient to allow the Marshals Service to complete service. The court gave Bynum 28 days from the filing date of the order. It stated that, if Bynum failed to provide the requested information, his claims against Laufik would be dismissed without prejudice under Rule 4(m) without further notice. The order itself directed Bynum to provide information and did not dismiss those claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.