Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00001/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00001-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN HAIRL WILHELM,

Plaintiff,

v.

DR. A. ROTMAN, et al., 

Defendants.

1:10cv0001 DLB PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO ENFORCE SERVICE ORDER

(Document 46)

Plaintiff Steven Hairl Wilhelm (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 

civil rights action filed on December 31, 2009. On July 12, 2012, the Court issued an order finding 

service of the First Amended Complaint appropriate as to Defendant Dr. A. Rotman. Plaintiff 

submitted service documents on August 6, 2012, and this Court directed the United States Marshal 

to serve Defendant Rotman by order dated August 15, 2012.

On June 10, 2013, the United States Marshal returned service unexecuted. Consequently, the 

Court issued an Order to Show Cause to Plaintiff on July 8, 2013. Plaintiff responded to the order 

on July 29, 2013, and provided another address for Defendant Rotman.

On July 31, 2013, the Court ordered the Marshal to serve Defendant Rotman at the address 

provided by Plaintiff. The Marshal has not returned service, either executed or unexecuted.

On March 31, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion to “enforce” the July 31, 2013, order. Plaintiff 

cites the portions of the order requiring the Marshal to notify Defendant Rotman of the action and 

request a waiver within ten days. He also cites the requirement that the Marshal personally serve 

Defendant Rotman if the waiver is not returned within sixty days. 

Case 1:10-cv-00001-DLB Document 47 Filed 04/02/14 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Plaintiff, noting that it has been over eight months since the July 2013 order, requests that the 

Court order the Marshal to “enforce” the order. Plaintiff has filed numerous motions regarding 

service in the past, and the Court recognizes that serving Defendant Rotman has been difficult. 

However, the order does not give the Court power to “enforce” the service timeline. Rather, service 

is dependent upon locating a defendant, which in some instances, can take quite some time. 

Moreover, the Marshal, like the Court, is tasked with handling a large number of pro se cases where 

the plaintiff is proceeding pro se. 

Until such time as the United States Marshal returns service and informs the Court whether 

service was successful, the Court will not issue any further orders. The Court also notes that a

plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis, and for whom service is performed by officers of the court 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), has no ability to dictate how that service shall lawfully be 

accomplished.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 1, 2014 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

3b142a

Case 1:10-cv-00001-DLB Document 47 Filed 04/02/14 Page 2 of 2