Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01200/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01200-7/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

RAYMOND BALDHOSKY ,

Plaintiff,

v.

SUSAN HUBBARD, et al., 

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:12-cv-01200-LJO-MJS (PC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR ORDER 

TO SERVE DEFENDANTS BY 

SUBSTITUTION OF SERVICE

(ECF No. 36)

CLERK TO TERMINATE ECF No. 44

Telephonic Status Conference 

Regarding Service: December 22, 2016 at 

10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 6 (MJS)

I. Procedural History

Plaintiff is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 

brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 4, 2016, the Court screened Plaintiff’s 

third amended complaint and found that it stated cognizable claims against ten 

defendants: Dr. Gonzalez, Dr. Nguyen, Dr. Metts, Physician’s Assistant L. Peters, 

Physician’s Assistant T. Byers, Nurse T. Grossi, Nurse Ruff, Nurse Indindes, and Nurse 

Amanda Kaylor. (ECF No. 31.) 

Case 1:12-cv-01200-JDP Document 59 Filed 11/28/16 Page 1 of 5
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 May 12, 2016, the United States Marshals Service was ordered to initiate 

service on the defendants. (ECF No. 33.) Defendants Gonzalez, Kaylor, and Metts 

waived service. (ECF Nos. 39.) They then filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a 

claim. (ECF No. 40.) The motion is pending.

Duc Nguyen waived service on behalf of Defendant Nguyen. (ECF No. 51.) Mr. 

Nguyen then moved pro se to quash service on the grounds that he mistakenly waived 

service and he is not the Defendant Nguyen named in the complaint. (ECF No. 55.) This 

motion also is pending.

Waivers of service for Defendants Peters, Byers, Grossi, Indindes, and Dunn 

were returned unexecuted. (ECF Nos. 45, 46, 56.) According to the Marshals Service, 

Defendants Dunn and Indindes no longer work for the California Department of 

Corrections and Rehabilitation. Defendants Peters, Byers, and Grossi were contract 

employees and are no longer employed with the contracting company. 

No waiver was returned for Defendant Ruff. However, the Marshals service has 

informed the Court that her waiver also was returned unexecuted.

Plaintiff has filed a motion seeking to serve the remaining defendants through 

substituted service at their last known place of business, i.e., the California Substance 

Abuse Treatment Facility in Corcoran, California. (ECF No. 36.) Defendants Gonzalez, 

Kaylor, and Metts filed a response. (ECF No. 42.) Plaintiff filed a reply, stating that 

Gonzalez, Kaylor, and Metts do not have standing to oppose the motion on behalf of the 

absent defendants.1(ECF No. 44.)

II. Legal Standard

In cases involving a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis, the Marshal, upon 

order of the Court, shall serve the summons and the complaint.228 U.S.C. § 1915(d); 

 

1

Plaintiff’s reply was docketed as a motion. (ECF No. 44.) The Clerk’s Office will be directed to terminate 

ECF No. 44 because it is not a motion.

2 Defendants imply that Plaintiff is not entitled to service by the U.S. Marshal because he is no longer 

incarcerated. (ECF No. 42 at 2.) However, the ability to utilize the Marshals Service derives from Plaintiff’s 

pauper status, not his incarceration.

Case 1:12-cv-01200-JDP Document 59 Filed 11/28/16 Page 2 of 5
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

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3). “[A]n incarcerated pro se plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis is 

entitled to rely on the U.S. Marshals for service of the summons and complaint and [he] 

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) (internal quotations and citation omitted), overruled

on other grounds by Sandin v. Connor, 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” for extending the time for service. Walker, 

14 F.3d at 1422 (internal quotations and citation omitted). 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.

Waivers of service may be sent to the individual defendant or to an agent 

authorized to receive service pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(h). Fed. R. 

Civ. P 4(d)(1)(A). Personal service may be undertaken in a number of ways. Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 4(e). The summons and complaint may be delivered personally to the defendant or 

the defendant’s authorized agent or left at the defendant’s dwelling or usual place of 

above. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(2). Alternatively, a defendant may be served by “following 

state law for serving a summons in an action brought in courts of general jurisdiction in 

the state where the district court is located or where service is made.” Fed. R. Civ. P 

4(e)(1).

California law is similar. A summons may be served personally on the individual. 

Cal. Code Civ. P. § 415.10. Alternatively, “a summons may be served by leaving a copy 

of the summons and complaint during usual office hours in his or her office or, if no 

physical address is known, at his or her usual mailing address” or “by leaving a copy of 

the summons and complaint at the person’s dwelling house, usual place of abode, usual 

place of business, or usual mailing address.” Cal Code. Civ. P. § 415.20. 

Case 1:12-cv-01200-JDP Document 59 Filed 11/28/16 Page 3 of 5
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

III. Discussion

At the outset, the Court notes that more than ninety days have passed since the 

Marshals Service was ordered to serve Defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). 

Nonetheless, the Court concludes there is good cause for extending this deadline. 

Plaintiff has diligently attempted to serve Defendants. Dismissal at this juncture is 

unwarranted. The Court will provide Plaintiff with an opportunity to be heard on the issue 

of dismissal if and when it appears that all reasonable efforts to serve Defendants have 

been exhausted.

Plaintiff is advised, however, that his current efforts to effectuate service are 

somewhat misplaced. As stated, it is Plaintiff’s obligation to provide the Marshals Service 

with sufficient information to identify the Defendants. Walker, 14 F.3d at 1422. With 

regard to the unserved Defendants, he has not done so. Absent further information, it

appears the Marshals Service is unable to locate and properly identify the individuals 

Plaintiff wishes to serve.

Nor may the Defendants be served by delivering the summons to the Defendants’ 

last known business address, as Plaintiff suggests. Because Defendants are no longer 

employed at that address and do not utilize it as a regular place of business, such 

service would not be effective under either federal or California law. 

The Court is cognizant that Plaintiff has limited, if any, ability to identify and locate 

these Defendants absent Court intervention. In such circumstances, the Court may open 

discovery for the limited purpose of identifying the Defendants with sufficient specificity 

to allow Plaintiff to locate them. See Wakefield v. Thompson, 177 F.3d 1160, 1163 (9th 

Cir. 1999). Plaintiff may be entitled to subpoena the California Department of Corrections 

and Rehabilitation and/or the contract employees’ employer. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45. Such 

subpoenas may entitle Plaintiff to a broad range of personal identifying information. 

Alternatively, the Office of the Attorney General, who represents Defendants 

Gonzalez, Kaylor, and Metts in this action, may agree to provide some of this information 

Case 1:12-cv-01200-JDP Document 59 Filed 11/28/16 Page 4 of 5
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

5

voluntarily. For example, defense counsel may agree to provide these Defendants’ 

current addresses for service of process, either directly to Plaintiff or to the Court in 

camera.

3

 Or, counsel may agree to provide Plaintiff with sufficient information to attempt 

to locate Defendants on his own, such as the Defendants’ full names and last known 

addresses.

In light of these considerations, the Court will set the matter for a telephonic status 

conference to discuss service of process and to attempt to resolve these issues. 

IV. Conclusion and Order

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for order to serve defendants by substitution of service 

(ECF No. 36) is DENIED;

2. The matter is set for a telephonic status conference on December 22, 2016 

at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 6 (MJS).

3. The parties may participate in the hearing by calling (888) 204-5984 and 

then entering access code 4446176#.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 27, 2016 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

3

In the Court’s experience, the Office of the Attorney General frequently is able to locate former 

employees, including contract employees, with a modicum of effort.

Case 1:12-cv-01200-JDP Document 59 Filed 11/28/16 Page 5 of 5