Travis v. Gomez
- Haywood Gilliam
- 3:22-cv-04199
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Travis v. Gomez, Judge Gilliam ordered Curtis Travis to serve two defendants or provide information so a marshal can find them.
Curtis Travis must address service on defendants Ramerize and D. Ramirez. Gomez, Barnes, and Muniz had already waived service. Ramerize and D. Ramirez face dismissal without prejudice if service is not completed or sufficient locating information is not provided within 28 days.
What happened
In Travis v. Gomez, Curtis Travis, an incarcerated plaintiff representing himself, brought a civil-rights lawsuit against prison employees. The court had already found that his complaint stated an Eighth Amendment claim against J. Gomez, Barnes, Ramerize, Muniz, and D. Ramirez.
The prison system reported that Gomez, Barnes, and Muniz waived service, but it could not identify Ramerize or D. Ramirez. The court said Travis had not provided enough information for a federal marshal to locate and serve those two defendants.
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. ordered Travis, within 28 days, either to serve Ramerize and D. Ramirez or provide enough identifying and locating information for the marshal to do so. The order says that failing to comply will result in dismissal of the claims against those defendants without prejudice; the opinion does not dismiss them at this stage.
The detailed version
- Travis v. Gomez · No. 3:22-cv-04199
- Haywood Gilliam
- Feb. 21, 2023
Background
Curtis Travis, an incarcerated plaintiff proceeding without a lawyer, filed this civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The court previously screened his operative complaint and found that it stated a legally valid Eighth Amendment claim against correctional officers J. Gomez, Barnes, Ramerize, and Muniz, and nurse D. Ramirez.
The court ordered service through the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's electronic service program for prisoner civil-rights cases. The department reported that Gomez, Barnes, and Muniz waived service. It also reported that it could not identify Ramerize or D. Ramirez.
Order
The court explained that an incarcerated plaintiff proceeding without prepaying filing fees may rely on service by the United States Marshal, but must still request service and try to correct known problems that prevent service. The court found that Travis had not provided enough information for the marshal to locate and serve Ramerize and D. Ramirez.
Within 28 days, Travis must either effect service on Ramerize and D. Ramirez or submit enough information to identify and locate them so the marshal can serve them. The court states that failure to meet the deadline will result in dismissal of those defendants without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). The order requires further action; it does not itself dismiss Ramerize or D. Ramirez.
Disposition
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. issued an order requiring Travis to complete service or provide information permitting service. The opinion does not report a final ruling on the underlying Eighth Amendment claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.