Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_99-cv-04190/USCOURTS-cand-3_99-cv-04190-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALONZO LEE TAYLOR, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

LINDA CLARKE, et al.,

Defendants. ___________________________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 99-4190 MMC (PR)

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

On September 10, 1999, plaintiff, a California prisoner incarcerated at the California

Training Facility (“CTF”) and proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled civil rights complaint

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In reviewing the Second Amended Complaint in accordance

with 42 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court, on February 18, 2004, found plaintiff had stated a

cognizable due process claim for deprivation of property against defendants Gary A. Craft

(“Craft”) and J.A. Soares (“Soares”), but found he had failed to state a cognizable claim that

any defendant had violated his constitutional right of access to the courts. Thereafter, on

October 28, 2004, the Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s due process

claim, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff appealed

both dismissals. In an opinion filed February 21, 2006, the Ninth Circuit affirmed as to

plaintiff’s due process claim and remanded as to the right-to-access claim, with the following

findings:

Taylor alleged that the state court appointed an investigator to aid him in his

state habeas proceeding, that he had the permission of the warden for

confidential legal visits with the investigator, that prison personnel nevertheless

Case 3:99-cv-04190-MMC Document 117 Filed 10/10/07 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 1

Defendant Craft, a county employee, was represented by County Counsel.

2

refused to mail his correspondence, that he grieved the refusal and prevailed

and that prison personnel still refused to mail his letter to the investigator. 

These allegations are sufficient to survive review under the screening provision

and require the government to respond. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; see also Lewis

v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996). 

On May 25, 2006, the Court ordered defendants to file a dispositive motion regarding

the access-to-courts claim found cognizable by the Ninth Circuit. Defendants Soares and

Craft thereafter correctly pointed out that in plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, the only

defendant alleged to be involved in the access-to-courts claim found cognizable by the Ninth

Circuit is defendant A. Griffin (“Griffin”), who had not yet been served. Accordingly, on

July 26, 2006, the Court dismissed defendants Soares and Craft; by that same order the Court

directed the Clerk of the Court to issue summons and the United States Marshal to serve

Griffin at CTF, where plaintiff indicated Griffin was located. (See Second Amended

Complaint at 2.) On September 7, 2006, the Marshals Service returned the summons

unexecuted, stating they were “unable to locate” Griffin at CTF because there was “no such

individual by this name” there. 

On October 26, 2006, the Court found plaintiff’s complaint had been pending for over

120 days, and thus, under Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, was subject to

dismissal without prejudice against the unserved defendant, absent a showing of “good

cause.” Accordingly, the Court ordered plaintiff, within thirty days of the date the order was

filed, to either himself effect service on Griffin, or provide the Court with an accurate current

location such that the Marshal would be able to effect such service. The Court informed

plaintiff that his failure to do so would result in dismissal of this matter pursuant to Rule

4(m). On November 29, 2006, the Court granted plaintiff’s request for a thirty-day extension

of time to comply with the Court’s order.

On January 3, 2007, plaintiff filed a motion to compel the state Attorney General

(“AG”), who was counsel of record for defendant Soares in this matter, to show cause why

sanctions and/or contempt findings should not be entered against him.1

 The basis for the

Case 3:99-cv-04190-MMC Document 117 Filed 10/10/07 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

3

motion was plaintiff’s contention the AG had failed to respond to his requests for a service

address for defendant Griffin, a state prison employee, and had refused to waive service on

Griffin’s behalf under Rule 4(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In support of his

motion, plaintiff filed a declaration in which he asserted that, in addition to having requested

service information from the AG, he had sent correspondence to the Litigation Coordinator at

CTF requesting such information, and had an associate who is not a state prisoner contact the

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation headquarters in Sacramento, and the

State Personnel Board, in an attempt to obtain Griffin’s current job title and assignment

location. According to plaintiff, no response had been provided to any of those inquiries. 

On August 3, 2007, the Court denied plaintiff’s motion, finding the State Attorney

General’s Office, which at present does not represent defendant Griffin or any other

defendant to this action, was under no legal obligation to provide plaintiff with service

information for Griffin or to waive service on Griffin’s behalf under Rule 4(d). The Court

also noted that because plaintiff had failed to comply with the Court’s order to show cause,

either by himself effecting service on Griffin or providing the Court with an accurate current

location such that the Marshal would be able to effect such service, the complaint was now

subject to dismissal. Nevertheless, in view of plaintiff’s asserted efforts to obtain service

information with respect to Griffin, and the asserted lack of any response to his requests, the

Court found good cause existed under Rule 4(m) to provide one final extension of time for

service. Accordingly, the Court directed the Clerk of the Court to send a letter to the Office

of Legal Affairs for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, requesting

assistance in obtaining a forwarding address for Griffin. The Court explained to plaintiff that

if a forwarding address was provided, the Court would direct the Clerk to issue a new

summons, for purposes of the United States Marshal’s making a renewed attempt to serve

Griffin. The Court also explained to plaintiff that if the Office of Legal Affairs informed the

Court it had no forwarding address for Griffin, the action would be dismissed under Rule

4(m). 

On August 6, 2007, the Clerk sent the aforementioned letter to the Office of Legal

Case 3:99-cv-04190-MMC Document 117 Filed 10/10/07 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

4

Affairs. As of today’s date, more than sixty days have passed since the letter was sent, and

the Office of Legal Affairs has not provided a forwarding address for Griffin. Under such

circumstances, the Court concludes the Office of Legal Affairs either has no forwarding

address for Griffin, or is not amenable to providing one. Although the Court found good

cause to request assistance from the Office of Legal Affairs in obtaining a forwarding address

for Griffin, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation is not a party to the

instant action, and is not subject to orders issued herein; consequently, the Court will take no

further action with respect to service of Griffin.

In view of the length of time this action has been pending and plaintiff’s inability to

serve Griffin, the Court concludes the action against Griffin is subject to dismissal without

prejudice under Rule 4(m). Accordingly, the above-titled action is hereby DISMISSED

without prejudice.

The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 10, 2007 ________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:99-cv-04190-MMC Document 117 Filed 10/10/07 Page 4 of 4