Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-05420/USCOURTS-cand-5_03-cv-05420-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

ORDER DIRECTING SERVICE OF AMENDED COMPLAINT; DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

AND SANCTIONS—No. C-03-05420 RMW

JAH

E-filed on 4/14/06

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

JAMAR EVANS,

Plaintiff,

v.

UNKNOWN NAMES OF DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS OFFICERS, and SANTA

CLARA COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS,

Defendants.

No. C-03-05420 RMW

ORDER DIRECTING SERVICE OF

AMENDED COMPLAINT; DENYING

DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS;

DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS FOR

DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND SANCTIONS

[Re Docket Nos. 62, 64, 66]

The Santa Clara County Department of Correction ("DoC"), on behalf of all defendants, has

moved to dismiss Jamar Evans's amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 

4(m) for failure to properly serve his amended complaint. Evans has moved for default judgment

and sanctions against the defendants. These motions are currently set for hearing on April 28, 2006,

but will be deemed submitted on the papers as of today. No hearing or appearance is necessary. 

Over two years ago, on December 3, 2003, Evans filed a complaint against six unknown

officers of the DoC. Evans alleged that the officers beat him unnecessarily during a booking, then

stripped and chained him. The court granted him leave to proceed in forma pauperis and authorized

the U.S. Marshal to serve the summons and complaint. The U.S. Marshal served Evans's original

Case 5:03-cv-05420-RMW Document 69 Filed 04/14/06 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

1 Rule 4(j)(2) requires service of a state or local government entity to be made upon its

"chief executive officer" or "in the manner prescribed by the law of that state." In California, the

pertinent state law is California Code of Civil Procedure § 416.50, which states that a "public entity"

may be served "by delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the clerk, secretary,

president, presiding officer, or other head of its governing body." Evans's most recent attempt at

service was on Sergeant D. Vasquez.

2 The DoC website lists Edward Flores as "Chief of Correction." See

http://www.sccgov.org/portal/site/doc/menuitem.244564f66e6d425580b558bb35cda429/

?path=%2Fv7%2FCorrection%2C%20Department%20of%20%28DEP%29%2FAdministration

3 Litigants and their attorneys should, nonetheless, conduct themselves to ensure just,

speedy, and inexpensive determination of actions.

ORDER DIRECTING SERVICE OF AMENDED COMPLAINT; DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

AND SANCTIONS—No. C-03-05420 RMW

JAH 2

complaint. Evans subsequently amended his complaint, adding the DoC as a defendant. 

The U.S. Marshal did not serve the DoC with Evans's amended complaint. Evans has made

several attempts to effect service himself, which, according to the DoC, have been insufficient.1

Neither party raised the issue of service by the U.S. Marshal in connection with the DoC's previous

motions to dismiss under Rule 4(m). The DoC, as a new defendant, must be properly served with

Evans's amended complaint to be made a proper party to this action; therefore, the court directs the

U.S. Marshal to serve a summons and Evans's amended complaint on Edward Flores2

 as the head of

the DoC. Such service should obviate the need for the court to hear the DoC's pending motion to

dismiss, and the court denies the DoC's motion to dismiss without prejudice to moving for dismissal

again if warranted.

Evans moves for default judgment against the "defendant(s)." As no defendant has properly

been made a party to this action, none can be in default. Evans's motion for default judgment is

denied.

Evans moves for sanctions against the "defendant(s)" for alleged violations of Rule 1. Rule 1

provides that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure "shall be construed and administered to secure the

just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action." Rule 1's command is directed to the

interpretation of the rules, not, as Evans seemingly believes, to the conduct of litigants.3

 The DoC

has not, by insisting that Evans comply with Rule 4(m), committed a sanctionable infraction. 

Evans's motion for sanctions is denied.

Case 5:03-cv-05420-RMW Document 69 Filed 04/14/06 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

ORDER DIRECTING SERVICE OF AMENDED COMPLAINT; DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

AND SANCTIONS—No. C-03-05420 RMW

JAH 3

ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the court 

(1) deems the DoC's motion to dismiss and plaintiff's motions for default judgment and

sanctions submitted on the papers;

(2) directs the U.S. Marshal to serve a summons and Evans's amended complaint on Edward

Flores as the head of the DoC;

(3) denies the defendants' motion to dismiss under Rule 4(m) without prejudice; 

(4) denies the plaintiff's motion for default judgment; and

(5) denies the plaintiff's motion for sanctions.

DATED: 4/14/06 /s/ Ronald M. Whyte

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:03-cv-05420-RMW Document 69 Filed 04/14/06 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

ORDER DIRECTING SERVICE OF AMENDED COMPLAINT; DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTIONS FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

AND SANCTIONS—No. C-03-05420 RMW

JAH 4

A copy of this order was mailed on to:

Plaintiff (pro se):

Jamar Evans 

114 Kim Avenue 

Atwater, CA 95301 

Counsel for Defendants:

Michael L. Rossi 

Office of the County Counsel 

70 West Hedding Street 

Ninth Floor, East Wing 

San Jose, CA 95110-1770 

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this order to co-counsel, as necessary.

Case 5:03-cv-05420-RMW Document 69 Filed 04/14/06 Page 4 of 4