Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01979/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01979-1/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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\06-1979-USM285s-conf.wpd 1 06cv1979

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM J. JONES,

CDC #V-27774,

Civil No. 06-1979 LAB (AJB)

Plaintiff, ORDER:

(1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR FIVE ADDITIONAL

U.S. MARSHAL 285 SERVICE

FORMS [Doc. No. 15];

(2) DIRECTING ATTORNEY

GENERAL TO PROVIDE

FORWARDING ADDRESS OF

DEFENDANT BOURLAND IN

CONFIDENTIAL MEMO TO 

U.S. MARSHAL IN ORDER 

TO EFFECT SERVICE; 

AND

(3) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF

TIME TO SERVE DEFENDANTS

DOVERY, SAWTELL, ZENDEJAS,

BOURLAND AND KILPA

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

[Doc. No. 16]

vs.

L. SCRIBNER, Warden; 

M.E. BOURLAND, Warden; 

M. LEVIN, CMO; M. CORREA, 

E. ORDUNO, RN; D. SAWTELL, RN; 

J. KELLERMAN, CCII; 

R. MADDEN, Lt. Cmdr.; 

T. OCHOA, Asst. Warden; 

JHON DOVERY, Director, CDCR; 

V. KILPA, MTA; M. ZENDEJAS, C/O; 

V. BACH, Sgt.; and G.T. JANDA, Warden;

Defendants.

On September 18, 2006, Plaintiff, William Jones, a state prisoner currently incarcerated

at Kern Valley State Prison in Delano, California, and proceeding pro se, submitted a civil rights

Case 3:06-cv-01979-MMA-AJB Document 29 Filed 05/25/07 Page 1 of 7
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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\06-1979-USM285s-conf.wpd 2 06cv1979

Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 15, 2006, the Court granted Plaintiff’s

Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”), but sua sponte dismissed his Complaint for failing

to state a claim upon which § 1983 relief could be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)

and 1915A(b). See Nov. 15, 2006 Order [Doc. No. 5]. Nonetheless, the Court granted Plaintiff

forty five (45) days to file an Amended Complaint correcting the deficiencies of pleading

identified by the Court. Id. Plaintiff was specifically cautioned that an Amended Complaint

would supersede the original pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 15, and therefore, any claim not realleged against any defendant not re-named would be considered waived. Id. at 9. On December

26, 2006, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) [Doc. No. 7], naming only

fourteen of the original thirty-two named defendants, and later, a Request for Summons and U.S.

Marshal Service. [Doc. No. 8]. 

On February 27, 2007, the Court found Plaintiff’s FAC survived the initial screening

provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A, directed the Clerk to issue a summons upon

Defendants Dovery, Janda, Scribner, Bourland, Levin, Correa, Orduno, Sawtell, Kellerman,

Madden, Ochoa, Kilpa, Zenedas and Bach, and further ordered the U.S. Marshal to effect service

of Plaintiff’s FAC upon these parties pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(2) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)

[Doc. No. 10]. The Court simultaneously directed the Clerk to terminate the action as to all

other previously named defendants. (Id. at 3.)

On February 28, 2007, the Clerk issued the summons on Plaintiff’s FAC, and prepared

an “IFP package,” including certified copies of Plaintiff’s FAC, a U.S. Marshal Form 285

(“USM Form 285”) for each Defendant named in the FAC, and a copy of the Court’s Order

granting him leave to proceed IFP. See Puett v. Blandford, 895 F.2d 630, 634 (9th Cir. 1990)

(“An incarcerated pro se plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis is entitled to rely on the U.S.

Marshal for service of summons and complaint”); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); FED.R.CIV.P. 4(a),

(c)(2). 

On March 28, 2007, the U.S. Marshal returned Plaintiff’s USM Form 285 unexecuted as

to defendant “Jhon Dovery,” whom Plaintiff had identified as the “Director of the CDCR”

(California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation), with a notation indicating that “[t]he

Case 3:06-cv-01979-MMA-AJB Document 29 Filed 05/25/07 Page 2 of 7
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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\06-1979-USM285s-conf.wpd 3 06cv1979

USMS doesn’t serve P.O. Box addresses.” (See Doc. No. 13.) On April 10, 2007, a second USM

Form 285 was returned unexecuted as to M.E. Bourland, whom Plaintiff had identified as a

Warden at Calipatria State Prison (“CAL”). This time, the USM Form 285 noted the Marshal

was unable to effect service upon Bourland at CAL because “[p]er [the] Litigation Coordinator,

[defendant] retired. No last known address.” (See Doc. No. 14.)

On April 23, 2007, Plaintiff filed a Request for “14 more USM Form 285s” [Doc. No.

15], as well as a Request and Declaration seeking an extension of time to effect service as to all

defendants pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 4(m) [Doc. No. 16]. Plaintiff seeks an extension because

“the institution where he is being housed has been on a series of lockdowns” and he has been

delayed in ascertaining the “correct address[es] to serve defendants.” (Pl.’s Decl. ¶¶ 5-8.) The

Court notes that since Plaintiff filed these requests, two additional USM Form 285s have been

returned unexecuted: one as to defendant D. Sawtell with a notation dated April 28, 2007, “per

“Litigation Coordinator, service not accepted due to the initial on nurse[’]s name is incorrect,”

[Doc. No. 17]; and one as to defendant M. Zendejas, also “not accepted due to incorrect initial

of officer.” [Doc. No. 18]. Nine additional Defendants (Ochoa, Scribner, Kellerman, Levin,

Bach, Janda, Correa, Orduno and Madden), however, have since filed waivers of personal

service pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 4(d) via the Office of the Attorney General. [Doc. Nos. 19-27].

The only defendant for whom no proof of service has been returned, either executed or

unexecuted, is V. Kilpa, a Medical Technical Assistant (“MTA”). Thus, it appears from the

docket in this matter that the following five defendants have yet to be properly served: Dovery,

Bourland, Sawtell, Zendejas and Kilpa.

I. FED.R.CIV.P. 4 Service Rules

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).

Case 3:06-cv-01979-MMA-AJB Document 29 Filed 05/25/07 Page 3 of 7
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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\06-1979-USM285s-conf.wpd 4 06cv1979

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 pauperis is

entitled to rely on the U.S. Marshal for service of the summons and complaint and ... should not

be penalized by having his action dismissed for failure to effect service where the U.S. Marshal

or the court clerk has failed to perform his duties.’” Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th

Cir. 1994) (quoting Puett, 912 F.2d at 275), abrogated on other grounds by Sandin v. Conner,

515 U.S. 472 (1995). “So long as the prisoner has furnished the information necessary to

identify the defendant, the marshal’s failure to effect service is ‘automatically good cause....’”

Walker, 14 F.3d at 1422 (quoting Sellers v. United States, 902 F.2d 598, 603 (7th Cir. 1990)).

However, where a pro se plaintiff fails to provide the Marshal with accurate and sufficient

information to effect service of the summons and complaint, the court’s sua sponte dismissal of

the unserved defendants is appropriate. Walker, 14 F.3d at 1421-22.; see also Rochon v.

Dawson, 828 F.2d 1107, 1110 (5th Cir. 1987) (noting that plaintiff “may not remain silent and

do nothing to effectuate such service”; rather, “[a]t a minimum, a plaintiff should request service

upon the appropriate defendant and attempt to remedy any apparent defects of which [he] has

knowledge.”). 

The Court enjoys broad discretion under Rule 4(m) to extend time for service even

without a showing of good cause. In re Sheehan, 253 F.3d 507, 513 (9th Cir. 2001); Mann v.

American Airlines, 324 F.3d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that district court may, under

the broad discretion granted by FED.R.CIV.P. 4(m), extend time for service retroactively after

the 120-day service period has expired). 

Here, because it appears Plaintiff has not yet provided sufficient information to allow the

Marshal to locate and serve Defendants Dovery, Sawtell, Zendejas and Kilpa, Plaintiff must

remedy the situation or face dismissal of his claims against them. See Walker, 14 F.3d at

1421-22 (holding prisoner failed to show cause why prison official should not be dismissed

under Rule 4(m) where prisoner failed to show he had provided Marshal with sufficient

Case 3:06-cv-01979-MMA-AJB Document 29 Filed 05/25/07 Page 4 of 7
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

 In the absence of a waiver of service, the Summons and Complaint may be served by (1)

delivering a copy of the Summons and Complaint to the individual personally; (2) leaving copies of the

documents at the individual’s dwelling house or usual place of abode with some person of suitable age

and discretion then residing therein; or (3) by delivering a copy of the documents to an agent authorized

by appointment or by law to receive service of process. See FED.R.CIV.P. 4(e)(2). Service may also

be effected under the law of California or the law of the state in which service is effected. FED.R.CIV.P.

4(e)(1). Under California law, service may be effected by the following means: (1) personal service

(CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE § 416.90); (2) if a copy of the summons and complaint cannot by reasonable

diligence be personally delivered, a summons and complaint may be left at the person’s dwelling house,

usual place of abode, usual place of business, or usual mailing address (other than a post office box) in

the presence of a competent member of the household or a person apparently in charge of the place of

business or usual mailing address, who is at least 18 years of age and who shall be informed of the

contents thereof; a copy of the Summons and Complaint must be subsequently mailed by first-class mail

to the person to be served at the place where a copy of the summons and complaint were left (service

being deemed complete on the 10th day after mailing) (CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE § 415.20(b)); or (3) by

mail, only if the person to be served executes an acknowledgment of receipt of summons as provided

in CAL. CIV. PROC. CODE § 415.30.

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\06-1979-USM285s-conf.wpd 5 06cv1979

information to effectuate service). As to Defendants Sawtell, a Registered Nurse at CAL, and

Zendejas, a CAL Correctional Officer, for whom “service [was] not accepted” based on

Plaintiff’s misidentification of their first initials, [Docs. No. 17, 18], the Court will provide

Plaintiff with additional USM Form 285s and time to correct this deficiency, if he is able. If

Plaintiff is unable to provide the U.S. Marshal with any further information “necessary to

identify” these parties, Walker, 14 F.3d at 1422, and service is again attempted, but returned

unexecuted for the same reason, the Court shall permit Plaintiff to conduct discovery as to their

identities at later stage of the case.

As for Defendant Dovery, the Court is curious as to why the USMS “doesn’t serve P.O.

box addresses.” [Doc. No. 13]. The Court takes judicial notice that the executed USM Form

285s in this case [Doc. Nos. 19-27], all indicate that it is the USMS’s regular practice to first

send the summons and USM Form 285s to Defendants “by regular mail,” anticipating that the

Office of the Attorney General, which represents a vast majority of all state correctional officerdefendants in § 1983 cases filed by prisoners, will thereafter file a waiver of personal service

pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 4(d) & (e).1 Under these circumstances, the Court finds good cause

to provide Plaintiff an opportunity to complete a new USM Form 285 for Defendant Dovery,

identified as a “Director of the CDCR,” at the CDCR’s street address. See FED.R.CIV.P. 4(m);

Mann, 324 F.3d at 1090. 

/ / /

Case 3:06-cv-01979-MMA-AJB Document 29 Filed 05/25/07 Page 5 of 7
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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\06-1979-USM285s-conf.wpd 6 06cv1979

Finally, the Court finds Plaintiff has provided information “necessary to sufficiently

identify” M.E. Bourland, a Warden at CAL at the time Plaintiff’s cause of action accrued.

Walker, 14 F.3d at 1422; [Doc. No. 14]. The only reason the U.S. Marshal was unable to effect

service upon Bourland at CAL however, is due to Bourland’s retirement, and the presumably

confidential nature of his forwarding address. Thus, as long as the privacy of Defendant

Bourland’s forwarding address can be preserved, Plaintiff is entitled to rely on the U.S. Marshal

to effect service upon Bourland on his behalf. See Puett, 912 F.2d at 275. The Court shall direct

the Deputy Attorney General assigned to this case to provide any forwarding address in his or

her possession, or which is easily obtainable from the CDCR’s personnel records for Defendant

Warden M.E. Bourland, and to provide that address to the U.S. Marshal in a confidential

memorandum indicating that the summons and Plaintiff’s FAC is to be served upon him at that

address. 

II. Conclusion and Order

Accordingly, the Court hereby:

1) GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion/Request for additional blank U.S. Marshal Forms

[Doc. No. 15]. The Clerk is ORDERED to provide Plaintiff with an additional “IFP Package”

consisting of: (1) this Order; (2) certified copies of his First Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 7];

(3) a duplicate summons [Doc. No. 11]; and (4) five (5) blank U.S. Marshal Form 285s for

purposes of re-attempting service as to Defendants Bourland, Kilpa, Sawtell, Zendejas and

Dovery; and

2) GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion/Request for an Extension of Time to Effect Service

upon Defendants Bourland, Kilpa, Sawtell, Zendejas and Dovery pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P.4(m)

[Doc. No. 16]. Plaintiff shall complete, as accurately and clearly as possible, the new USM

Marshal Form 285s provided to him, and shall return them to the U.S. Marshal no later than

June 15, 2007.

3) IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(2), (m) and 28

U.S.C. § 1915(d), the U.S. Marshal shall, within 30 days of receiving Plaintiff’s updated U.S.

Marshal Form 285s and receipt of Defendant Bourland’s confidential forwarding address, effect

Case 3:06-cv-01979-MMA-AJB Document 29 Filed 05/25/07 Page 6 of 7
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

 Defendant Bourland’s address shall not appear on any U.S. Marshal Form 285, shall not be

provided to Plaintiff, and shall not be made part of the Court’s record.

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\06-1979-USM285s-conf.wpd 7 06cv1979

service of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint and summons upon Defendants Bourland,2 Kilpa,

Sawtell, Zendejas and Dovery as directed by Plaintiff on the new U.S. Marshal Form 285s

provided to him herein. All costs of service shall be advanced by the United States pursuant to

the Court’s November 15, 2006 Order granting Plaintiff leave to proceed IFP and directing

service pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) and FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(2) [Doc. No. 5]. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 25, 2007

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01979-MMA-AJB Document 29 Filed 05/25/07 Page 7 of 7