Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00200/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00200-4/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

cc: District Judge Miller; all parties 1 07cv200

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STANFORD P. BRYANT, Civil No. 07cv200 JM (PCL)

Plaintiff, ORDER:

DENYING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION (DOC. NO. 43);

GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR ORDER DIRECTING U.S.

MARSHAL TO SERVE SUMMONS

AND SECOND AMENDED

COMPLAINT (DOC. NO. 52) 

vs.

TIM OCHOA, Chief Deputy Warden, et al.,

Defendants.

On January 30, 2007, Plaintiff Stanford P. Bryant, a state prisoner currently incarcerated

at Calipatria State Prison, and proceeding pro se, submitted a civil rights Complaint pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. No. 1.) On April 17, 2007, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to

Proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) and issued an Order directing the U.S. Marshal to effect

service of summons and the complaint pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(2) and 28 U.S.C. §

1915(d). (Doc. No. 5.) On June 15, 2007, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint,

which was superseded by Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 30.) On July 6, 2007,

Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 31.) The Court

granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ Motion. (Doc. 42.) On March 19, 2008, Plaintiff

filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s Order dismissing in part his First Amended

Complaint. (Doc. No. 43.) On that same day, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint.

Case 3:07-cv-00200-JM-PCL Document 54 Filed 05/29/08 Page 1 of 4
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

cc: District Judge Miller; all parties 2 07cv200

(Doc. No. 44.) On May 1, 2008, Defendants’ filed its Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Second

Amended Complaint. (Doc. No. 47.) Plaintiff subsequently filed a motion requesting an

extension of time to effectuate service on Defendant’s Stuart J. Ryan, R. Romero, E. Best, and

J. Carnes. (Doc. No. 49.) The Court granted Plaintiff an additional 90 days to do so. (Doc. No.

50.) Finally, Plaintiff moved this Court for issuance of an Order directing the U.S. Marshal to

re-attempt service as to Defendants Stuart J. Ryan, E. Best, R. Romero, and J. Carnes. (Doc. No.

52, at 1.) 

I. Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration

Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of the Court’s dismissal of portions of his First

Amended Complaint has been superseded by Plaintiff’s filing of a Second Amended

Complaint. With the First Amended Complaint no longer the operable pleading, Plaintiff’s

Motion for Reconsideration is moot and is hereby DENIED. Plaintiff’s Second Amended

Complaint contains the same causes of action and same defendants listed in Plaintiff’s

original First Amended Complaint. (See Doc. No. 44.) The Court will have the opportunity

to review those causes of action earlier dismissed to see if Plaintiff has corrected any

pleading deficiencies when it rules on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the Second Amended

Complaint. 

II. Plaintiff’s Motion for Order Directing U.S. Marshal to Re-attempt Service

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that:

[i]f service of the summons and complaint is not made upon the

defendant within 120 days after the filing of the complaint, the

court, upon motion or on its own initiative after notice to the

plaintiff, shall dismiss the action without prejudice as to that

defendant or direct that service be effected within a specified

time; provided that if the plaintiff shows good cause for the

failure, the court shall extend time for service for an appropriate

period.

FED.R.CIV.P. 4(m).

In cases involving a plaintiff proceeding IFP, a United States Marshal, upon order of

the court, shall serve the summons and the complaint. FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(2); 28 U.S.C. §

1915(d) (in IFP proceedings, “[t]he officers of the court shall issue and serve all process, and

perform all duties in such cases.”). “‘[A]n incarcerated pro se plaintiff proceeding in forma

Case 3:07-cv-00200-JM-PCL Document 54 Filed 05/29/08 Page 2 of 4
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

cc: District Judge Miller; all parties 3 07cv200

pauperis is entitled to rely on the U.S. Marshal for service of the summons and complaint.’” 

Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994) (quoting Puett v. Blandford, 912 F.2d

270, 275 (9thCir. 1990)), abrogated on other grounds by Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472

(1995). In order to allow 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915 and 1915A to operate harmoniously with

FED.R.CIV.P. 4(m), where a necessary delay occurs, Rule 4(m)’s 120-day time for service

may be suspended for a time by the Court. See Urrutia v. Harrisburg County Police Dept.,

91 F.3d 451, 459-60 (3rd Cir. 1996); see also Shabazz v. Franklin, 380 F. Supp. 2d 793, 799-

800 (N.D. Texas 2005); Warren v. Ruffcorn, 2001 WL 34043449 at *4 (D. Oregon 2001)

(unpublished). 

Here, the Court has granted Plaintiff an additional 90 days to effectuate service of

process on unserved defendants. (Doc. No. 50.) Good cause appearing, Plaintiff’s Motion

for an Order Directing U.S. Marshal Service as to Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint is

hereby GRANTED. 

III. Conclusion and Order

Accordingly, the Court hereby:

1) DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration as Moot;

2) GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Order Directing U.S. Marshal Service as to

Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint on unserved Defendants.

The Clerk is ORDERED to issue the summons as to Defendants and to provide

Plaintiff with an additional “IFP Package” consisting of: (1) this Order; (2) the Court’s April

17, 2007 Order Granting IFP (Doc. No. 5); (3) four certified copies of Plaintiff’s Second

Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 44); (4) the summons; and (5) four blank USM Form 285s

for purposes of re-attempting service as to Defendants Stuart J. Ryan, E. Best, R. Romero,

and J. Carnes. Plaintiff shall complete the Form 285s and forward them to the U.S. Marshal. 

The U.S. Marshal shall serve a copy of the Second Amended Complaint upon Defendants as

directed by Plaintiff on each U.S. Marshal Form 285. All costs of service shall be advanced

by the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); FED. R. CIV. P. 4(c)(2). Plaintiff shall serve

upon Defendants or, if appearance has been entered by counsel, upon Defendants’ counsel, a

Case 3:07-cv-00200-JM-PCL Document 54 Filed 05/29/08 Page 3 of 4
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

cc: District Judge Miller; all parties 4 07cv200

copy of every further pleading or other document submitted for consideration of the Court. 

Plaintiff shall include with the original paper to be filed with the Clerk of the Court a

certificate stating the manner in which a true and correct copy of any document was served

on Defendants, or counsel for Defendants, and the date of service. Any paper received by the

Court which has not been filed with the Clerk or which fails to include a Certificate of

Service will be disregarded. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 29, 2008

Peter C. Lewis

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:07-cv-00200-JM-PCL Document 54 Filed 05/29/08 Page 4 of 4