Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01633/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-01633-1/pdf.json

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

---

1

16cv1633-BAS (MDD)

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MORIANO MILLARE,

Plaintiff, 

v.

G. STRATTON, et al.,

Defendants. 

Case No.: 16cv1633-BAS (MDD)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART 

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION 

REQUESTING ORDER 

REQUIRING DEFENSE COUNSEL 

PROVIDE FORWARDING 

ADDRESS

[ECF No. 34]

On June 24, 2016, Plaintiff, a prisoner at Richard J. Donovan 

Correctional Facility (“RJD”) proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis (“IFP”), 

initiated this case by filing a civil rights complaint. (ECF No. 1). On January 

4, 2017, Plaintiff filed a “Request for Order Directing Defense Counsel 

Provide Confidential Addresses to the U.S. Marshals Service” and requested 

an extension of time to serve four defendants. (ECF No. 19). On January 9, 

2017, this Court denied Plaintiff’s motion. (ECF No. 20). On January 17, 

2017, Plaintiff constructively filed a “Renewed Motion Requesting Order 

Directing Defense Counsel Provide Confidential Addresses to U.S. Marshals 

Case 3:16-cv-01633-BAS-MDD Document 35 Filed 03/16/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 6
2

16cv1633-BAS (MDD)

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

for Service.” (ECF No. 26). There are seventeen defendants in this case and 

fourteen have filed a waiver of service and a motion to dismiss the case. 

(ECF Nos. 4-16, 22, 28). On February 28, 2017, the summons was returned 

unexecuted as to Defendant Brown. (ECF No. 29). 

On March 7, 2017, Plaintiff signed a “Motion Requesting Order 

Requiring Defense Counsel Provide Forwarding Address,” which the Court 

accepted on discrepancy on March 15, 2017. (ECF Nos. 33, 34). Plaintiff now

seeks to serve Defendants Brown and Limon and requests that the Court 

order defense counsel to provide their last known addresses to the U.S. 

Marshal Service, so that the U.S. Marshal can serve these defendants. (ECF 

No. 34 at 4). Plaintiff also requests an extension of time to serve these 

defendants. (Id.). 

In support, Plaintiff explains that he sent a letter to the U.S. Marshal 

Service on February 10, 2017, inquiring about the status of service as to 

Defendants Limon and Brown. (Id. at 3, 6). Plaintiff has not received any 

information regarding the status of service as to Defendant Limon. (Id. at 3). 

Plaintiff’s summons was returned unexecuted as to Defendant Brown, 

indicating that Defendant Brown “retired from CDCR” and that there was 

“no forwarding address provided.” (Id. at 8).

I. REQUEST TO PROVIDE ADDRESSES TO U.S. MARSHALS

In cases involving a plaintiff proceeding IFP, a United States Marshal, 

upon order of the court, shall serve the summons and the complaint. Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 4(c)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) (in IFP proceedings, “[t]he officers of the 

court shall issue and serve all process, and perform all duties in such cases.”). 

“An incarcerated pro se plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis is entitled to 

rely on the U.S. Marshal for service of the summons and complaint and . . . 

should not be penalized by having his action dismissed for failure to effect 

Case 3:16-cv-01633-BAS-MDD Document 35 Filed 03/16/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 6
3

16cv1633-BAS (MDD)

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

service where the U.S. Marshal or court clerk has failed to perform his 

duties.” Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994) (quoting Puett 

v. Blandford, 912 F.2d 270, 273 (9th Cir. 1990), abrogated on other grounds 

by Sandin v. Conner, 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 . . . .” Walker, 14 F.3d at 

1422 (quoting Sellers v. United States, 902 F.2d 598, 603 (7th Cir. 1990)).

Plaintiff’s motion is premature as to Defendant Limon because Plaintiff 

has not received notification from the U.S. Marshals that the summons was 

returned unexecuted as to Defendant Limon and that the U.S. Marshals’ 

failed to serve him. (ECF No. 34 at 3). Therefore, Plaintiff has not shown 

good cause and Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE as 

to Defendant Limon.

Plaintiff has provided information “necessary to sufficiently identify”

Defendant Brown as a supervising correctional officer at RJD when the 

alleged claims occurred. Plaintiff has provided this information to the United 

States Marshal Service and already has attempted to effect service upon 

Defendant Brown at RJD, his last known place of employment. The Court 

finds that Plaintiff should not be penalized with dismissal as to Defendant 

Brown simply because he no longer is employed at RJD and GRANTS

Plaintiff’s motion as to Defendant Brown.

The only reason the U.S. Marshal was unable to effect service upon 

Defendant Brown is due to his retirement and the presumably confidential 

nature of his forwarding address. Accordingly, as long as the privacy of 

Defendant Brown’s forwarding address can be preserved, Plaintiff is entitled 

to rely on the U.S. Marshal to effect service upon Defendant Brown on his 

behalf. See Puett, 912 F.2d at 275. The Court hereby directs the Deputy 

Case 3:16-cv-01633-BAS-MDD Document 35 Filed 03/16/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 6
4

16cv1633-BAS (MDD)

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

Attorney General assigned to this case to contact the Litigation Coordinator 

at RJD and/or the CDCR’s Legal Affairs Division and to ask him or her to 

provide any forwarding address in his or her possession, or which is 

obtainable from the CDCR’s personnel records for Defendant Brown, now 

retired, and to forward that address to the U.S. Marshal in a confidential 

memorandum indicating that the summons and Plaintiff’s complaint is to be 

served upon Defendant Brown at that address. The U.S. Marshal Service 

must effectuate service using the new address without additional paperwork 

from Plaintiff.

II. REQUEST TO EXTEND TIME TO SERVE DEFENDANTS

Plaintiff also requests the Court to grant him an extension of time to 

serve Defendants Limon and Brown. (ECF No. 34 at 4). Pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 4:

[i]f a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is 

filed, the court – on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff 

– must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant 

or order that service be made within a specified time. But if the 

plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the 

time for service for an appropriate order.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).

The Court previously granted Plaintiff an extension of time to serve 

Defendants Brown and Limon. (ECF No. 27 at 4). Plaintiff has informed the 

Court that since the Court’s January 31, 2017, Order [ECF No. 27], he has 

received notice that the summons was returned unexecuted as to Defendant 

Brown, but not as to Defendant Limon. (ECF No. 34 at 3, 6). Accordingly, 

the Court finds good cause to GRANT Plaintiff’s request and extend the time 

to serve Defendants Limon and Brown until May 20, 2017.

//

Case 3:16-cv-01633-BAS-MDD Document 35 Filed 03/16/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 6
5

16cv1633-BAS (MDD)

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

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, the Court hereby:

1. DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiff’s request to provide 

the address of Defendant Limon to the U.S. Marshals;

2. GRANTS Plaintiff’s request to provide the address of Defendant 

Brown to the U.S. Marshals and ORDERS the Deputy Attorney General 

assigned to this case to provide the forwarding address to the U.S. Marshal in 

a confidential memorandum stating that the summons and complaint are to 

be delivered to the address provided. The Attorney General’s Office must 

provide the U.S. Marshal with any such information by April 5, 2017. If the 

Attorney General cannot locate the address for Defendant Brown, he must 

file a declaration by that same date stating such, and explain why the 

address could not be provided.

Within 30 days of receipt of any available address from the Attorney 

General, the Court ORDERS the U.S. Marshal to serve a copy of Plaintiff’s 

complaint and summons on Defendant Brown. All costs of service shall be 

advanced by the United States pursuant to the Court’s September 26, 2016 

Order granting Plaintiff leave to proceed IFP and directing service pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2). (ECF No. 3); and

3. GRANTS Plaintiff an extension of time in which to file service 

upon Defendants Brown and Limon pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) until 

May 20, 2017. See Mann v. American Airlines, 324 F.3d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 

2003) (holding that the district court may, under the broad discretion granted 

by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m), extend time for service retroactively after the service 

period has expired).

4. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk provide the 

Attorney General’s Office an “IFP Package” consisting of: (1) this Order; (2) a 

Case 3:16-cv-01633-BAS-MDD Document 35 Filed 03/16/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 6
6

16cv1633-BAS (MDD)

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

copy of the Court’s September 26, 2016 Order Granting IFP and Directing 

U.S. Marshal Service [ECF No. 3]; (3) a certified copy of his Complaint [ECF 

No. 1]; (4) an alias summons; and (5) a blank USMS Form 285 for purposes of 

re-attempting service upon Defendant Brown. Both the Attorney General’s 

Office and the Office of the U.S. Marshal are ORDERED to keep the address 

provided strictly confidential. Thus, the address may not appear on any U.S. 

Marshal Form 285, may not be provided to Plaintiff, and may not be made 

part of the Court’s record.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 16, 2017

Case 3:16-cv-01633-BAS-MDD Document 35 Filed 03/16/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 6