Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05806/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05806-1/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JASON SAUNDERS, CASE NO. CV-F-02-5806 OWW DLB P

Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR SERVICE BY MARSHAL

vs.

[Doc. 55]

J.W. FAIRMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

section 1983. The Court has previously ruled that plaintiff is not entitled to proceed in forma pauperis

in this action because he has previously accumulated at least three qualifying dismissals on the grounds

of being frivolous, malicious, or failing to state a claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Court’s Order filed

September 25, 2002. On November 15, 2004, the Magistrate Judge recommended that this action be

dismissed based on plaintiff’s failure to obey the Court’s order of April 23, 2004 directing plaintiff to

effect service on defendants. Plaintiff filed objections to the recommendation and the Court adopted the

recommendation and dismissed the case on February 4, 2005. Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal on

February 9, 2005. On July 19, 2006, plaintiff moved this Court pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure 60(a) and (b) to reconsider its orders of November 15, 2004 and February 4, 2005. Given

plaintiff’s pro per status and possible confusion regarding the rules for service of process, the Court

granted plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of his case on August 29, 2006. In the

same Order, the Court granted plaintiff sixty (60) days in which to complete service of process on

Case 1:02-cv-05806-LJO -DLB Document 59 Filed 10/10/06 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

defendants.

On September 18, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion to reconsider this Court’s Order of September

25, 2002 denying plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff requests that the Court

reconsider this denial so that plaintiff may seek the assistance of the United State Marshal to serve

process on defendants.

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(2), at the request of the plaintiff, “the court may

direct that service be effected by a United States marshal, deputy United States marshal, or other person

or officer specially appointed by the court for that purpose.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(c)(2). The Court construes

plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration of the denial of his application to proceed in forma pauperis as a

request that service be effected by the United States marshal. Good cause having been shown, plaintiff’s

motion is hereby granted and the court will direct the Marshal to initiate service. However, plaintiff will

be required to pay the marshal’s costs in doing so. 

This case is currently on appeal with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal and consequently, the

file has been forwarded to the Court of Appeal. Upon return of the file to this Court, the Court will

forward USM 285 forms and a copy of the amended complaint to plaintiff, along with the estimated

costs for service by the marshal. Plaintiff will be required to return the USM 285 forms, along with

sufficient copies of the amended complaint for service on each defendant and the appropriate funds.

Upon receipt, the Court will direct the United States marshal to serve the defendants. In the meantime,

the Court vacates the deadline set for service of process in its August 29, 2006 Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: October 6, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-05806-LJO -DLB Document 59 Filed 10/10/06 Page 2 of 2