Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00501/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-00501-40/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD CHARLES HANNA,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARIPOSA COUNTY SHERIFF DEPT. 

et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:12-cv-00501-AWI-SAB

ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANTS BOEHM, 

KING, RAMIREZ, AND RUMFELT TO 

RESPOND TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE 

FILED JULY 23, 2013

(ECF No. 35)

RESPONSE DUE WITHIN TWENTY DAYS

On January 8, 2013, an order issued directing the United States Marshal (“Marshal”) to 

serve process upon the defendants in this action. (ECF No. 23.) After receiving no response to 

the waiver of service forms mailed to Defendants, personal service was assigned by the Marshal

on May 6, 2013. The complaint was served on May 16, 2013. On July 15, 2013, the Marshal 

filed a request for a court order requiring Defendants to reimburse the costs incurred by the 

Marshal for personal service, pursuant to Rule 4(d)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

(ECF No. 33.) The Court issued an order to show cause, which was mailed to the Mariposa 

County Sheriff’s Office, on July 23, 2013. (ECF No. 35.) When Defendants failed to respond,

default was entered on September 10, 2013. (ECF No. 39.) Subsequently, Defendants moved to 

set aside default because they had mistakenly filed all paperwork for this action with a similar 

closed action not realizing a second lawsuit had been filed by Plaintiff. (ECF No. 57.) An order 

issued setting aside the default. (ECF No. 96.) 

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss which was granted in part on July 22, 2014. (ECF 

Case 1:12-cv-00501-SAB Document 135 Filed 10/02/14 Page 1 of 2
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

No. 117.) The complaint in this action was re-served on Defendants Boehm, Rumfelt, Ramirez, 

and King due to a technical error with the original service of the complaint. (ECF Nos. 123, 129.) 

Defendants filed an answer on September 30, 2014. (ECF No. 134.) To date, Defendants have 

not filed a response to the order to show cause filed July 23, 2013.

Based upon the pleadings that have been filed in this action, it appears that the Marshal 

incurred costs of service due to the defendants’ negligent handling of the summonses and 

complaint in this action.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within twenty (20) days from the date of 

service of this order, Defendants Boehm, Rumfelt, Ramirez, and King shall respond to the order 

to show cause filed July 23, 2013. Defendants’ failure to comply with this order shall result in an 

order requiring Defendants Boehm, Rumfelt, Ramirez, and King to reimburse the Marshal for 

costs of personal service.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 1, 2014 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-00501-SAB Document 135 Filed 10/02/14 Page 2 of 2