Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02226/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-02226-2/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 - 10cv2226-WQH (WMc)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PETER ROMERO LOMAX,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 10cv2226-WQH (WMc)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART

AND DENYING IN PART

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

ORDER TO COMPEL (ECF No. 31)

vs.

DR. CANLAS, et al.,

Defendants.

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis (“IFP”) with a civil rights Complaint

filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, filed a “Motion to Compel.” [ECF No. 31]. Specifically,

Plaintiff requests the Court find Defendants in contempt of court for violating the court order

directing the U.S. Marshal to effect service and order the Defendants to provide the addresses

of the following un-served Defendants: Dr. Farinas, G. Cassesi, Dr. K. L. Hawthorne, MARS

Committee, Dr. Lehv, N. Grannis, Mathew Cate, and Dr. John Lubisich. (ECF No. 31, pg. 1).

“[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 having provided the necessary

information to help effectuate service, plaintiff should not be penalized by having his or her

action dismissed for failure to effectuate service.” Puett v. Blandford, 912 F.2d 270, 275 (9th

Cir. 1990). So long as the prisoner has furnished the information necessary to identify the

defendant, the Marshal’s failure to effect service of process is automatically good cause within

the meaning of FED.R.CIV.P. 4[m]. See Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir.

Case 3:10-cv-02226-WQH-WMC Document 44 Filed 12/15/11 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

1

 Rule 4(m) 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).

- 2 - 10cv2226-WQH (WMc)

1994).1

Here, Plaintiff has sufficiently identified Defendants Matthew Cate, Dr. Lehv, Dr.

Farinas, N. Grannis, Dr. K. L. Hawthorne, and G. Cassesi because he has identified them by

name and title as employees or independent contractors of the California Department of

Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Thus, as long as the privacy of Defendants Cate,

Hawthorne, Lehv, Farinas, and Cassesi’s forwarding addresses can be preserved, Plaintiff is

entitled to rely on the U.S. Marshal to effect service upon those Defendants on his behalf. See

Puett, 912 F.2d at 275.

The electronic docket does not indicate service was attempted on Defendants Lubisich

or Grannis. It is unclear whether Plaintiff attempted to serve these Defendants. Nevertheless,

Plaintiff insists he complied with the Court’s prior order instructing him how to complete the

“IFP package.” Plaintiff has sufficiently identified Defendants Grannis and Lubisich and thus,

as long as the privacy of these Defendants’ forwarding addresses can be preserved, Plaintiff

is entitled to rely on the U.S. Marshal to effect service upon them on his behalf. See Id.

Also, it is unclear from Plaintiff’s Complaint whether he is attempting to sue the MAR

Committee as a separate entity or if he is seeking to sue the individual members of the MAR

Committee. Further, after a thorough review of the Complaint, it remains unclear which of the

Defendants, either served or un-served, were members of the MAR Committee. To the extent

Plaintiff seeks to sue the committee separate and apart from its individual members, the

committee should be dismissed as a Defendant because the MAR Committee is not a person.

See 42 U.S.C. § 1983. If Plaintiff intends to sue any individual MAR Committee members not

already identified as Defendants, Plaintiff should file an amended complaint identifying those

individuals by name.

Finally, the Court concludes Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate the Defendants have

Case 3:10-cv-02226-WQH-WMC Document 44 Filed 12/15/11 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

- 3 - 10cv2226-WQH (WMc)

acted in contempt of court. Plaintiff does not specify how the Defendants, or which

Defendants, violated the Court’s order. Presumably, Plaintiff is requesting the Court hold the

Defendants in contempt because of the U.S. Marshal’s unsuccessful service attempt on

Defendants Lehv, MAR Committee, Hawthorne, Farinas, and Cassesi. However, the U.S.

Marshal is not a defendant. Additionally, Plaintiff has failed to allege the Defendants impeded

or hindered service. Without more, the Court cannot find the Defendants in contempt for the

alleged failure of the U.S. Marshal. 

Conclusion and Order

Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request to find the Defendants in contempt.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion to compel and ORDERS Defendants’ counsel to

provide the forwarding address for Defendants Cate, Lehv, Farinas, Grannis, Hawthorne,

Lubisich, and Cassesi to the U.S. Marshal in a confidential memorandum indicating that the

summons and complaint is to be delivered to that address. The Defendants’ counsel shall

provide the U.S. Marshal with any such information on or before December 30, 2011. 

Within forty-five (45) days of receipt of any available address from the Defendants’

counsel, the Court ORDERS the U.S. Marshal to serve a copy of Plaintiff’s Complaint and

summons upon defendants Cate, Lehv, Farinas, Grannis, Hawthorne, Lubisich, and Cassesi

referenced herein. All costs of service shall be advanced by the United States pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(d) and FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(3). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court provide a copy of: (1) the

Court’s December 07, 2010 Service Order [ECF No. 4]; (2) this Order; (3) the Complaint, 

///

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 3:10-cv-02226-WQH-WMC Document 44 Filed 12/15/11 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

- 4 - 10cv2226-WQH (WMc)

summons and a blank U.S. Marshal Form 285 to Defendants’ counsel for purposes of reattempting service as to Cate, Lehv, Farinas, Grannis, Hawthorne, Lubisich, and Cassesi.

However, both the Defendants’ counsel and the Office of the U.S. Marshal are ORDERED

to keep the addresses provided for Cate, Lehv, Farinas, Grannis, Hawthorne, Lubisich, and

Cassesi strictly confidential. Thus, the addresses 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. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 15, 2011

Hon. William McCurine, Jr.

U.S. Magistrate Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:10-cv-02226-WQH-WMC Document 44 Filed 12/15/11 Page 4 of 4