Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Lamar Paschall, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. His operative complaint names a defendant identified as "Sinclair(e), M.D.," allegedly employed at the Sierra Conservation Center (SCC). On April 16, 2025, the court found he stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim against that defendant. After the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) declined to waive service in June 2025, the U.S. Marshal tried to serve a "Dr. Jack St. Clair" at a San Luis Obispo address in September 2025 and was told no such person worked there.
On November 5, 2025, the court issued an order to show cause why Sinclair or St. Clair should not be dismissed, directing Paschall to supply location information. The court then granted two 90-day extensions, on December 23, 2025 and March 19, 2026, each warning that failure to provide the information would lead to dismissal under Rule 4(m). Paschall filed nothing further on this defendant. A magistrate judge recommended dismissal without prejudice on June 17, 2026; no objections were filed, and the court adopted the recommendation on July 7, 2026. Paschall then moved under Rule 60(b)(1) and (6) to vacate that order, reinstate Sinclair, and obtain another 90 days.
The Court’s Holding
The court denied the motion. It first explained that the July 7 order was interlocutory because the case continues against other defendants, so Rule 60(b), which addresses final judgments and orders, does not strictly apply. Because Paschall is pro se and invoked Rule 60(b), the court analyzed the motion under both Rule 54(b) and Rule 60(b) and found the outcome the same. It rejected the argument that the adoption order was premature, calculating that the fourteen-day objection period ran from mailing service on June 18, 2026, and, with three added days under Rule 6(d), expired July 6, so the July 7 order was timely. (The opinion's text on this point is somewhat inconsistent, first saying the order issued "too soon" and then concluding it was not premature; the stated calculation and heading support timeliness.) It also called any imprecision in the findings' statement that ninety days had elapsed harmless.
On the merits, Paschall's exhibits showed only that a Jack St. Clair provided medical services at SCC at some point between January 2021 and December 2023. The name was not new, and the exhibits supplied no current address, last known address, or current employer, which is what the Marshal lacked. No new or different facts under Local Rule 230(j) were shown. The court found no excusable neglect under Rule 60(b)(1) because Paschall received the records response around May 11, 2026, more than five weeks before the findings issued, and filed nothing, instead asking third parties to contact the Clerk. It found no extraordinary circumstances under Rule 60(b)(6), acknowledging his diligence but noting that diligence does not replace the information Rule 4(m) requires. Exercising its discretion under Efaw v. Williams, it declined a third extension as futile. The dismissal remains without prejudice, and claims against the remaining defendants are unaffected.
Key Takeaways
- A prisoner relying on the U.S. Marshal for service must furnish information sufficient to locate the defendant; diligent letter-writing to third parties does not substitute for that information.
- Records showing a physician once worked at a facility, without a current or last known address, do not justify reconsidering dismissal for failure to serve.
- Obtaining helpful information and not filing it with the court, while asking agencies to write to the Clerk, does not amount to excusable neglect.
- Because an interlocutory order can be revised under Rule 54(b), a court may analyze such a motion under both Rule 54(b) and Rule 60(b) and apply the same demanding standard.
- A court may deny another extension as futile after two extensions produced no usable address, and a dismissal for failure to serve here is without prejudice.
Why It Matters
This is a non-precedential district court order, but it illustrates how courts apply Walker v. Sumner's requirement that prisoners furnish the information needed to identify and locate defendants, and how strictly they hold plaintiffs to filing obligations after repeated extensions.
Because the dismissal is without prejudice and affects only Sinclair, the case continues against the remaining defendants. The order does not address whether any claim against this defendant could be pursued later.