Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Plaintiff Michael A. Davila, a federal prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil action against the United States and Dr. Paltengni, a physician formerly employed at USP Atwater. On August 18, 2026, the court issued an order to show cause requiring Davila to provide sufficient information to permit service on Dr. Paltengni within forty-five days or show cause why the defendant should not be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). Davila did not respond within the deadline and instead filed a motion for extension of time on October 15, 2026, explaining that he had been transferred from USP Victorville to USP Big Sandy on August 1, 2026, and did not receive the court's order until September 1, 2026. He further cited mental and physical health conditions limiting his ability to obtain records and limited access to mailing supplies and services.
Davila also filed a response to the order to show cause supported by a declaration and exhibits. His mother had located a medical license, a possible mailing address, a possible telephone number, and several possible practice addresses for Dr. Paltengni, but the offices contacted declined to confirm whether he worked there. Davila acknowledged he did not know Dr. Paltengni's address but contended that Bureau of Prisons personnel records should contain it. He requested an order under 5 U.S.C. § 552a(b)(11) directing the government to locate and disclose Dr. Paltengni's address, asked the court to direct the U.S. Marshals Service to seek address information from licensing boards and the U.S. Postal Service, and requested a copy of the government's answer and a new USM-285 form.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted Davila's motion for extension of time, finding that his transfer and described difficulties established good cause and excusable neglect under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b). However, the court determined that Davila's response to the order to show cause did not provide sufficient information to locate and serve Dr. Paltengni. Citing Ninth Circuit precedent, the court held that a plaintiff must provide sufficient and accurate information to identify and locate a defendant for service and cannot satisfy this obligation by asking the court or the U.S. Marshals Service to investigate leads on his behalf. The court also noted that Davila's request under 5 U.S.C. § 552a was misplaced, as that provision allows individuals to obtain records relating to themselves, not to obtain personal information about a third party for service of process.
The court extended the response deadline to December 20, 2026, and ordered the Bureau of Prisons to conduct a reasonable search of its personnel, employment, and other records for a last-known address for Dr. Paltengni, who was a physician at USP Atwater from August 2021 through August 2022. If an address is located, the Bureau must provide it confidentially to the Clerk of Court or the U.S. Marshals Service solely for effectuating service. If no address is found, the Bureau must file a declaration describing the records searched. The court also ordered the government to re-serve its answer on Davila, directed the Clerk to provide a new USM-285 form and summons, and emphasized that the Bureau's search supplements rather than replaces Davila's own duty to locate the defendant. The court deferred entry of a case management order pending resolution of the service issue.
Key Takeaways
- A pro se prisoner's transfer between facilities and health limitations can constitute good cause and excusable neglect for missing a court deadline under Rule 6(b).
- A plaintiff bears the burden of providing sufficient information to permit service of process and cannot delegate investigative duties to the court or the U.S. Marshals Service.
- The Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) does not authorize courts to order disclosure of a third party's personal information for the purpose of effecting service.
- A court may direct the Bureau of Prisons to search its records for a former employee's last-known address to facilitate service, with any discovered address provided confidentially to the Clerk or Marshals Service.
- Failure to provide sufficient information for service by the court-ordered deadline may result in dismissal of the unserved defendant without prejudice under Rule 4(m).
Why It Matters
This order illustrates the practical challenges pro se incarcerated plaintiffs face in effecting service of process and the court's role in balancing procedural requirements with the interests of justice. By ordering the Bureau of Prisons to search its records while maintaining the plaintiff's independent obligation to locate the defendant, the court crafted a pragmatic solution that respects the plaintiff's limitations without relieving him of his procedural burden. The decision reinforces Ninth Circuit precedent that plaintiffs are not entitled to a private investigator at public expense and clarifies that the Privacy Act does not provide a mechanism for obtaining a defendant's address for service. The confidential handling of any discovered address protects the defendant's privacy while enabling the litigation to proceed.