Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-06396/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-06396-15/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

ROBERT LEE ROBINS, JR.,

Plaintiff,

v.

L. ATCHUE, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:01-CV-06396-AWI-SMS-P

ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANT CRAMER

TO SHOW GOOD CAUSE FOR FAILING TO

WAIVE SERVICE AND TO SHOW CAUSE

WHY SANCTIONS SHOULD NOT BE

IMPOSED AGAINST HER FOR ACTING IN

BAD FAITH, AND SETTING MATTER FOR

HEARING (Doc. 108)

Date: November 7, 2006

Time: 10:00 a.m.

Courtroom: 7 (SMS)

DEFENDANT CRAMER’S WRITTEN

RESPONSE TO THE ORDER TO SHOW

CAUSE IS DUE ON OR BEFORE OCTOBER

18, 2006, AND PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE, IF

ANY, IS DUE ON OR BEFORE NOVEMBER

1, 2006

On December 2, 2005, the Court ordered the United States Marshal to serve process upon

Defendant Cramer (“Defendant”). (Doc. 81.) The Marshal was directed to attempt to secure a

waiver of service before attempting personal service on Defendant. If a waiver of service was not

returned by Defendant within sixty days, the Marshal was directed to effect personal service on

Defendant in accordance with the provisions of Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and

28 U.S.C. § 566(c), without prepayment of costs, and to file the return of service with evidence of

any attempt to secure a waiver of service and with evidence of all costs subsequently incurred in

effecting personal service. 

Case 1:01-cv-06396-LJO -SMS Document 113 Filed 09/22/06 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

2

On August 7, 2006, the United States Marshal filed a return of service with a USM-285 form

showing charges of $554.80 for effecting personal service on Defendant. (Doc. 108.) The form

shows that a waiver of service form was mailed to Defendant on January 11, 2006, and then

forwarded to Defendant’s new address on February 24, 2006, but was returned as unclaimed.

Defendant was personally served on July 25, 2006, and did not make an appearance in the case

before personal service was executed.

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in pertinent part, as follows: 

An individual, corporation, or association that is subject to service

under subdivision (e), (f), or (h) and that receives notice of an action

in the manner provided in this paragraph has a duty to avoid

unnecessary costs of serving the summons . . . .

If a defendant located within the United States fails to comply with

a request for waiver made by a plaintiff located within the United

States, the court shall impose the costs subsequently incurred in

effecting service on the defendant unless good cause for the failure be

shown.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(2).

It appears that Defendant was given the opportunity required by Rule 4(d)(2) to waive

service, but failed to comply with the request. Therefore, Defendant shall be required to show good

cause for failing to waive service.

Of additional concern to the Court is that it appears Defendant lied to a DeputyUnited States

Marshal on the first personal service attempt made on July 11, 2006, causing the Marshals to make

a second trip to her residence to personally serve her, at which time she apparently admitted to lying

and accepted service. The Court has inherent power to sanction parties or their attorneys for

improper conduct. Chambers v. Nasco, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 43-46 (1991); Roadway Express, Inc. v.

Piper, 447 U.S. 752, 766 (1980); Fink v. Gomez, 239 F.3d 989, 991 (9th Cir. 2001). The imposition

of sanctions under the Court’s inherent authority is discretionary. Air Separation, Inc. v.

Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London, 45 F.3d 288, 291 (9th Cir. 1995). The Court’s “inherent power

‘extends to a full range of litigation abuses.’” Fink, 239 F.3d at 992 (quoting Chambers, 501 U.S.

at 46-47). However, in order to sanction a litigant under theCourt’sinherent powers, theCourt must

make a specific finding of “bad faith or conduct tantamount to bad faith.” Fink, 239 F.3d at 994.

Case 1:01-cv-06396-LJO -SMS Document 113 Filed 09/22/06 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 Plaintiff is no longer in custody. 1

3

Although mere recklessness is insufficient to support sanctions under the Court’s inherent powers,

“recklessness when combined with an additional factor such as frivolousness, harassment, or an

improper purpose” is sufficient. Id. at 993-94. 

Lying to a law enforcement officer in an effort to evade service of process is an act the Court

takes very seriously. Such conduct is clearly in bad faith. If the Court makes a finding that

Defendant acted in bad faith by lying to the Deputy United States Marshals in an attempt to evade

service, it is the intention of the Court impose monetary sanctions against Defendant, payable to the

Court. By this order, Defendant has been placed on notice of the conduct at issue and of the Court’s

intent to impose sanctions should it find Defendant acted in bad faith.

This matter shall be set for hearing. Both defendant and her counsel are required to

personally appear at the hearing. The Court will arrange for the presence of Deputy United States

Marshals Richards and Rodriguez at the hearing. Plaintiff may appear by telephone, and shall call

the Court at the number set forth below at the time and on the date of the hearing.1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant Cramer shall show good cause for failing to waive service and shall show

cause why monetary sanctions should not be imposed against her for acting in bad

faith;

2. This matter is set for hearing on November 7, 2006, at 10:00 a.m. before the

undersigned in Courtroom 7;

3. Defendant Cramer and her attorney shall personally appear at the hearing;

4. Plaintiff shall appear by telephone at the hearing and shall initiate the call to (559)

499-5690;

5. Defendant Cramer’s written response to this order to show cause shall be filed on or

before October 18, 2006;

6. Plaintiff’s response, if any, shall be filed on or before November 1, 2006; and

///

Case 1:01-cv-06396-LJO -SMS Document 113 Filed 09/22/06 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

7. The Clerk’s Office shall serve a copy of this order on Deputy United States Marshals

Richards and Rodriguez with the Fresno Division of the United States Marshals

Service.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 21, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:01-cv-06396-LJO -SMS Document 113 Filed 09/22/06 Page 4 of 4