Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-05276/USCOURTS-cand-5_09-cv-05276-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BILLY CARTER,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ED FOULK, et al.,

Defendants.

________________________________/

No. C 09-5276 SBA (PR)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

SANCTIONS; AND DIRECTING

PLAINTIFF TO SHOW CAUSE WHY

CLAIMS AGAINST UNSERVED NAMED

DEFENDANTS SHOULD NOT BE

DISMISSED

Plaintiff, who is being housed at the Napa State Hospital (NSH), has filed a pro se civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He has paid the full filing fee.

Venue is proper because the events giving rise to the claims are alleged to have occurred at

NSH, which is located in this judicial district. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).

In his complaint, Plaintiff names the following Defendants: Executive Director Ed Foulk,

Clinical Administrator Carmen Caruso, and "Members of Ward T-1 Treatment Teams whose names

are unknown." Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief as well as monetary damages.

To date, Plaintiff has not filed a proof of service on any of the Defendants named above.

Instead, Plaintiff has filed a motion entitled, "Request for Sanctions Against Defendants and

Request for Service of Process." Plaintiff claims that he "arranged for [his] sister Rosie

Carter/Alexander to mail a notice of lawsuit, a request for waiver of summons, a copy of the

complaint, and a waiver of summons form to Napa State Hospital Defendants Ed Foulk and Carmer

Caruso, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 4(d)(1)." (Pl.'s Mot. at 1.) Plaintiff

claims his sister "mailed the aforesaid documents to the defendants by certified mail to attempt to

avoid unnecessary costs of serving the summons and complaint on the defendants." (Id.) He alleges

that "certified mail return receipts were signed by Napa State Hospital personnel on or about

December 16, 2009 and December 17, 2009, and it appears the receipts were signed by different

persons on those dates." (Id.) Plaintiff also claims that he "did not receive anything in the mail

indicating the Defendants mailed the waiver of summons forms to the Court . . . ." (Id.) Plaintiff

requests that "sanctions . . . be levied against the defendants." (Id. at 2.) 

Case 5:09-cv-05276-LHK Document 4 Filed 05/12/10 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Plaintiff has attached the "certified mail return receipts" to his motions; however, as

mentioned above, he has failed to file formal proof of service on any of the Defendants named

above. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's motion for sanctions. 

Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides: 

If service of a summons and complaint is not made upon a 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 the time for service for an

appropriate period. 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Here, Plaintiff's complaint has been pending for over 120 days and thus,

absent a showing of "good cause," claims against the unserved defendants are subject to dismissal

without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).

Recognizing the fact that he is a pro se litigant, the Court finds good cause exists to extend

the service deadline under Rule 4(m). Within thirty (30) days from the date of this Order, Plaintiff

shall file proof that he has served the named Defendants. Plaintiff is directed to file formal proof of

service forms, and to not simply attach "certified mail return receipts" as proof that he has served

the named Defendants. The failure to do so will result in the dismissal of all claims against these

named Defendants without prejudice.

Even if a prisoner pays the fee and serves the complaint on his own, the Court is still

required to review the action before it can proceed. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) (federal courts must

engage in a preliminary screening of cases in which prisoners seek redress from a governmental

entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.) Once Plaintiff has filed proof that he has

served the named Defendants, the Court will screen it in a separate written order.

It is Plaintiff's responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the Court informed

of any change of address and must comply with the Court's orders in a timely fashion. Failure to do

so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute, pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 41(b).

Extensions of time are not favored, though reasonable extensions will be granted. Any

motion for an extension of time must be filed no later than fifteen (15) days prior to the deadline

Case 5:09-cv-05276-LHK Document 4 Filed 05/12/10 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

G:\PRO-SE\SBA\CR.09\Carter5276.OSC(4m).frm3

sought to be extended.

This Order terminates Docket no. 3.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 5/10/10 

SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

United States District Judge

Case 5:09-cv-05276-LHK Document 4 Filed 05/12/10 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

G:\PRO-SE\SBA\CR.09\Carter5276.OSC(4m).frm4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BILLY R. CARTER,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ED FOULK et al,

Defendant. /

Case Number: CV09-05276 SBA 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, hereby certify that I am an employee in the Office of the Clerk, U.S. District

Court, Northern District of California.

That on May 12, 2010, I SERVED a true and correct copy(ies) of the attached, by placing said

copy(ies) in a postage paid envelope addressed to the person(s) hereinafter listed, by depositing said

envelope in the U.S. Mail, or by placing said copy(ies) into an inter-office delivery receptacle

located in the Clerk's office.

Billy R. Carter

Napa State Hospital

2100 Napa Vallejo Hwy

Napa, CA 94558

Dated: May 12, 2010

Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: LISA R CLARK, Deputy Clerk

Case 5:09-cv-05276-LHK Document 4 Filed 05/12/10 Page 4 of 4