Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-00930/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-00930-0/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 05cv930

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEROME JORDAN,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 05cv930 BTM (RBB)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR ORDER SETTING

ASIDE DISMISSAL [Doc. #28]

vs.

CITY OF EL CENTRO POLICE DEPT.,

et al.,

Defendant.

Plaintiff, a prisoner at R.J. Donovan State Prison who is proceeding pro se, has filed

a motion to set aside the Court’s prior order of dismissal. On February 27, 2006, the Court

entered an order granting the pending motions to dismiss filed by Defendants El Centro

Police Department and officers Mark Segal and Ray Bonillas. In that order, the Court

identified a number of deficiencies in Plaintiff’s complaint and granted Plaintiff until March 24,

2006 to file an amended complaint which corrected the noted deficiencies. The Court

indicated that Imperial County Sheriff’s Deputy Joe Alvarez had been named as a Defendant,

though the docket did not reflect service upon him. Nonetheless, the Court explained that

the claims against Deputy Alvarez would fail for the same reasons that Plaintiff’s claims

against the El Centro Police Department and its officers fail and, thus, the Court would

dismiss the claims against Deputy Alvarez as well. The Court instructed Plaintiff that, if he

wished to proceed against Deputy Alvarez, he would be required to serve any amended

complaint upon Deputy Alvarez within 30 days of filing such complaint.

Case 3:05-cv-00930-BTM-RBB Document 29 Filed 05/21/07 Page 1 of 3
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 05cv930

It was unclear whether Plaintiff intended to name the Imperial County Sheriff’s

Department as a Defendant as well because it is not listed specifically among the Defendants

in the “Parties” section of the complaint. However, it was the Court’s intention in the previous

order to dismiss both Deputy Alvarez and the Sheriff’s Department, if indeed it were a

Defendant. See, e.g., 2/27/06 Order at 9 (“If Plaintiff wishes to proceed in an action against

the Imperial County Sheriff’s Department or Sheriff Joe Alvarez, he must properly serve any

amended complaint on them within 30 days of filing the amended complaint.”) (emphasis

added).

Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint and the Court entered judgment

dismissing Plaintiff’s action against Defendants El Centro Police Department and officers

Mark Segal and Ray Bonillas on May 11, 2006. On June 12, 2006, the Court, construing it

as a motion for relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60, denied Plaintiff’s motion to allow him to amend

his complaint after the time allotted in the Court’s prior order due to extraordinary

circumstances beyond his control.

On February 20, 2007, Plaintiff filed the present motion requesting that the Court set

aside its prior order of dismissal. In support of his motion, Plaintiff has submitted a process

receipt which he contends indicates that the United States Marshal did serve process of

Plaintiff’s original summons and complaint upon Deputy Alvarez in September 2005.

However, the form does not reflect completed service, only that the Marshal received the

summons for the purpose of service. Nevertheless, as was explained by the Court in its

February 2006 order, the claims against Deputy Alvarez suffered from the same deficiencies

as those against the other Defendants. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claims against Deputy Alvarez

were not dismissed for failure to serve the complaint but, rather, for failure to properly state

a claim upon which relief could be granted. Therefore, even if Plaintiff provided proof that

his original complaint had been served upon Deputy Alvarez, this would simply be unavailing.

Plaintiff’s failure to timely file an amended complaint which corrected the deficiencies

identified in the Court’s prior order required the dismissal of his claims against all

Defendants.

Case 3:05-cv-00930-BTM-RBB Document 29 Filed 05/21/07 Page 2 of 3
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

 Plaintiff has included a request for the Court to provide him an attorney along with

his motion papers. Plaintiff claims that he suffers from a disability covered under the

Americans with Disabilities Act, which “makes it hard for [him] to read, write and/or

understand material regarding [his] case.” As the Court’s ruling is premised upon the

deficiencies of Plaintiff’s original complaint and his prior failure to timely amend his complaint,

the Court finds that provision of an attorney at this point will not substantially aid Plaintiff.

3 05cv930

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED and the Clerk is directed to enter final

judgment dismissing the action against all remaining Defendants.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 21, 2007

Hon. Barry Ted Moskowitz

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-00930-BTM-RBB Document 29 Filed 05/21/07 Page 3 of 3