Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01974/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01974-4/pdf.json

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

---

1

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PASCUAL GOSSELIN,

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

J. TILTON, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:10-cv-01974-GSA-PC

 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 

REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE WITH 

SERVICE

(Doc. 20.)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF 

LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA 

PAUPERIS FOR LIMITED PURPOSE 

OF SERVICE OF PROCESS

ORDER DIRECTING SERVICE BY 

THE UNITED STATES MARSHALS 

SERVICE WITHOUT PREPAYMENT 

OF COSTS 

I. BACKGROUND

Pascual Gosselin (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on 

October 12, 2010, at the Sacramento Division of the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of California. (Doc. 1.) On October 21, 2013, the case was transferred to the 

Fresno Division. (Doc. 3.) This case now proceeds on the First Amended Complaint filed by 

Plaintiff on October 29, 2012, against defendants Adams, Hubach, Taber, and Latraille 

(“Defendants”). (Docs. 11, 12.)

Plaintiff is not proceeding in forma pauperis in this action, because he paid the $350.00 

filing fee in full on November 8, 2010. (Court Record.) As a result, Plaintiff is not 

automatically entitled to the assistance of the United States Marshal (“Marshal”) without cost 

Case 1:10-cv-01974-GSA Document 21 Filed 09/26/13 Page 1 of 5
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

to serve process upon Defendants. 28 U.S.C. § 1915. On May 2, 2013, the court provided 

Plaintiff with documents and instructions to serve process himself. (Doc. 12.) On September 

16, 2013, Plaintiff submitted proofs of service to the court as evidence that he had successfully 

served process upon defendants Taber and Adams, but not upon defendants Hubach and 

Latraille. (Doc. 20.) Plaintiff now requests assistance by the Marshal to serve process upon 

defendants Hubach and Latraille, or in the alternative, a court order for the California Attorney 

General to accept service on behalf of defendants Hubach and Latraille. (Id.)

Plaintiff’s request for assistance with service of process by the Marshal is now before 

the court.

II. INDIGENCE, IN FORMA PAUPERIS STATUS, AND SERVICE

Under 28 U.S.C. ' 1915, the court may authorize a party to proceed in forma pauperis, 

or without prepayment of fees, in an action or proceeding, if the party submits an affidavit 

showing the person is unable to pay such fees. 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(a)(1). If such authorization is 

granted, the court may direct payment by the United States of certain expenses, and the United 

States Marshal is directed to serve all process in the case. 28 U.S.C. ' 1915(c),(d). If such 

authorization is denied, the plaintiff is not automatically entitled to have the United States 

Marshal serve defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(1). However, even if a plaintiff is not 

proceeding in forma pauperis, the court has discretion, at the plaintiff=s request, to order that 

service be made by the United States Marshal. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3). 

Plaintiff’s Request

Plaintiff requests a court order directing the Marshal to serve process upon defendants 

Hubach and Latraille, because despite his efforts, Plaintiff was unsuccessful at serving those 

two defendants. Plaintiff asserts that on August 20, 2013, he paid $140.00 to the Kings County 

Sheriff’s Civil Division (“Sheriff”) to serve process upon the four defendants to this action, 

Taber, Adams, Hubach, and Latraille. (Request, Doc. 10 at 2:1-3.) Plaintiff asserts that 

defendants Adams and Taber were successfully served, but the Sheriff was unable to serve 

defendants Hubach and Latraille because those two defendants no longer work at Corcoran 

State Prison and were unable to be found. (Id. at 2:10-14.) Plaintiff claims that both 

Case 1:10-cv-01974-GSA Document 21 Filed 09/26/13 Page 2 of 5
3

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

defendants Hubach and Latraille are still employees of the California Department of 

Corrections and Rehabilitation and should be able to be located. (Id. at 2:15-17.) Plaintiff 

claims that both defendants are being represented by the California Attorney General’s Office 

in other cases at this court. (Id. at 2:17-21.) Plaintiff has provided service documents to enable 

the Marshal to serve process upon defendants Hubach and Latraille. (Doc. 19.)

III. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff has explained his unsuccessful good faith efforts to serve process himself upon 

defendants Hubach and Latraille. Based on this explanation, Plaintiff's request for assistance 

by the Marshal to serve process shall be granted. Plaintiff shall be granted leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis for the limited purpose of service of process. Plaintiff has provided 

documentation to enable the Marshal to attempt service upon defendants Hubach and Latraille. 

IV. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff=s request for assistance by the United States Marshals Service to serve 

process upon defendants Hubach and Latraille is GRANTED;

2. Plaintiff is GRANTED leave to proceed in forma pauperis for the limited 

purpose of service of process;

3. For each defendant to be served, the Clerk of the Court is directed to forward the 

following documents to the United States Marshals Service:

(1) One completed and issued summons;

(2) One completed USM-285 form;

(3) One copy of the First Amended Complaint filed on October 29, 2012, 

plus an extra copy for the Marshals Service (Doc. 11.); and

(4) One copy of this order, plus an extra copy for the Marshals Service.

4. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c), within ten days from the date 

of this order, the Marshals Service is directed to notify the following defendants 

of the commencement of this action and to request a waiver of service in 

accordance with the provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d) and 28 U.S.C. ' 566(c):

Case 1:10-cv-01974-GSA Document 21 Filed 09/26/13 Page 3 of 5
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

LIEUTENANT R. HUBACH

SERGEANT D. LATRAILLE

5. The Marshals Service shall file returned waivers of service as well as any 

requests for waivers of service that are returned as undelivered as soon as they 

are received. 

6. If a waiver of service is not returned by a defendant within sixty days of the date 

of mailing the request for waiver, the Marshals Service shall:

a. Personally serve process and a copy of this order upon the defendant 

pursuant to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. 

' 566(c), and shall command all necessary assistance from the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to execute this 

order. The Marshals Service shall maintain the confidentiality of all 

information provided by the CDCR pursuant to this order. In executing 

this order, the Marshals Service shall contact the Legal Affairs 

Division of CDCR, if needed, and request the assistance of a Special 

Investigator if the Litigation Office at the institution is unable to 

assist in identifying and/or locating defendants.

1

b. Within ten days after personal service is effected, the Marshals Service 

shall file the return of service for the defendant, along with evidence of 

any attempts to secure a waiver of service of process and of the costs 

subsequently incurred in effecting service on said defendant. Said costs 

shall be enumerated on the USM-285 form and shall include the costs 

incurred by the Marshals Service for photocopying additional copies of 

the summons and complaint and for preparing new USM-285 forms, if 

 

1The Marshal should note the explanation in this Order at pages 2-3 that the Kings County Sheriff 

previously attempted service upon defendants Hubach and Latraille at Corcoran State Prison, but service was 

unsuccessful because these two defendants no longer work at Corcoran State Prison. Plaintiff asserts that 

defendants Hubach and Latraille are still employees of the CDCR and therefore should be able to be located.

Case 1:10-cv-01974-GSA Document 21 Filed 09/26/13 Page 4 of 5
5

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

required. Costs of service will be taxed against the personally served 

defendant in accordance with the provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(2).

7. If defendants waive service, they are required to return the signed waivers 

to the Marshals Service. The filing of an answer or a responsive motion 

does not relieve defendants of this requirement, and the failure to return 

the signed waivers may subject defendants to an order to pay the costs of 

service pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(2).

8. In the event that defendants either waive service or are personally served, 

defendants are required to reply to the complaint. 42 U.S.C. ' 1997e(g)(2).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 25, 2013 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END:

6i0kij8d

Case 1:10-cv-01974-GSA Document 21 Filed 09/26/13 Page 5 of 5