Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
On January 5, 2026, plaintiff Myshielle Richelle Jacquez, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, commenced this civil rights action alleging that on September 11, 2023, Salinas Valley State Prison correctional officer R. Gracia retaliated against her for grievance writing by grabbing her and snatching her backwards. The court screened the complaint on June 1, 2026, and ordered the Clerk to serve defendant Gracia under the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation's (CDCR) e-service program for civil rights cases from prisoners in CDCR custody.
On July 27, 2026, CDCR informed the court that it had been unable to identify the staff member involved in the alleged September 11, 2023 incident. CDCR stated there was no correctional officer by the name of R. Gracia, and while SVSP has two correctional officers whose first names begin with "R" and with the last name Garcia, one was in training and the other was on his regular day off on the incident date. The complaint has been pending for over 90 days without successful service.
The Court’s Holding
The court held that an incarcerated plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis may rely on service by the Marshal but may not remain silent and do nothing to effectuate service. Citing Rochon v. Dawson, 828 F.2d 1107, 1110 (5th Cir. 1987), the court stated that at minimum a plaintiff should request service upon the appropriate defendant and attempt to remedy any apparent defects of which she has knowledge. Absent a showing of good cause, a complaint pending for over 90 days is subject to dismissal without prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).
The court found that plaintiff has not provided sufficient information to allow the Marshal to locate and serve defendant Gracia (or Garcia), and the complaint was filed on January 5, 2026. Citing Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1421-22 (9th Cir. 1994), the court held that a prisoner failed to show cause why a prison official should not be dismissed under Rule 4(m) where the prisoner failed to show he had provided the Marshal with sufficient information to effectuate service. Accordingly, the court ordered plaintiff to effect service on defendant Gracia (or Garcia) within 28 days, or submit sufficient information to identify and locate the defendant such that the Marshal can effect service. Failure to comply will result in dismissal of the action against defendant Gracia without prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), and dismissal of the action for failure to prosecute pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a).
Key Takeaways
- Incarcerated plaintiffs proceeding in forma pauperis have an affirmative duty to provide sufficient identifying information to enable service of process, even when relying on the Marshal.
- CDCR's inability to locate an officer matching the plaintiff's description triggers the plaintiff's obligation to supply additional identifying details.
- Failure to effectuate service within 90 days without good cause subjects the complaint to dismissal without prejudice under Rule 4(m).
- The court may also dismiss the entire action for failure to prosecute under Rule 41(a) if the plaintiff does not comply with the service order.
- Plaintiff has 28 days from October 20, 2026 to either effect service or provide sufficient information for the Marshal to do so.
Why It Matters
This order illustrates the practical hurdles prisoner civil rights plaintiffs face in identifying and serving individual correctional officers, particularly when prison records do not corroborate the plaintiff's identification of the defendant. The court's reliance on Rochon and Walker establishes that pro se prisoner plaintiffs cannot passively rely on the Marshal but must actively assist in identifying defendants. The 28-day deadline and dual threat of dismissal under both Rule 4(m) and Rule 41(a) underscore the court's insistence on diligent prosecution even at the earliest stages of prisoner litigation.