Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01640/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01640-4/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

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

THOMAS WEBSTER,

Plaintiff,

v.

LOVE, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:18-cv-01640-BAM (PC)

ORDER PROVIDING DEFENDANT

HASKINS WITH THE OPPORTUNITY TO 

SHOW GOOD CAUSE FOR FAILING TO 

WAIVE SERVICE

(ECF No. 30)

THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Thomas Webster (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Individuals detained under 

California Welfare Institutions Code § 6600 et seq. are civil detainees and are not prisoners 

within the meaning of the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Page v. Torrey, 201 F.3d 1136, 1140 

(9th Cir. 2000).

On November 8, 2019, the Court ordered the United States Marshal to initiate service of 

process on Defendant Haskins. (ECF No. 29.) The Marshal was directed to attempt to secure a 

waiver of service before attempting personal service on the defendant. If a waiver of service was 

not returned by the defendant within sixty days, the Marshal was directed to effect personal 

service on the defendant in accordance with the provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 

and 28 U.S.C. § 566(c), without prepayment of costs, and to file the return of service with 

evidence of any attempt to secure a waiver of service and with evidence of all costs subsequently 

Case 1:18-cv-01640-BAM Document 35 Filed 04/06/20 Page 1 of 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

2

incurred in effecting personal service.

On February 19, 2020, the United States Marshal filed a return of service USM-285 form 

showing charges of $69.64 for effecting personal service on Defendant Haskins. (ECF No. 30.) 

The form shows that a waiver of service form was mailed to Defendant Haskins on November 18, 

2019. (Id.)

Pursuant to the Court’s Order, Defendant Haskins is required to return the waiver to the 

United States Marshal and the filing of an answer or a motion does not relieve her of this 

obligation. Defendant Haskins did not return a waiver, which resulted in the execution of 

personal service on February 18, 2020.

Defendant Haskins filed an answer—in response to the Court’s March 13, 2020 order to 

show cause why default should not be entered—on March 30, 2020. (ECF No. 32.)

Rule 4 provides that “[a]n individual, corporation, or association that is subject to service 

under Rule 4(e), (f), or (h) has a duty to avoid unnecessary expenses of serving the summons.” 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(1). “If a defendant located within the United States fails, without good cause, 

to sign and return a waiver requested by a plaintiff located within the United States, the court 

must impose on the defendant . . . the expenses later incurred in making service. . . .” Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 4(d)(2)(A).

It appears that Defendant Haskins was given the opportunity required by Rule 4(d)(1) to 

waive service, but failed to return the waiver to the United States Marshal, although Defendant 

Haskins did make an appearance in the action. The Court shall provide Defendant Haskins with 

the opportunity to show good cause for failing to waive service. If Defendant Haskins either fails 

to respond to this order or responds but fails to show good cause, the costs incurred in effecting 

service shall be imposed.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant Haskins may, within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, 

show good cause for failing to waive service; and

///

///

Case 1:18-cv-01640-BAM Document 35 Filed 04/06/20 Page 2 of 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

3

2. If Defendant Haskins fails to respond to this order or responds but fails to show good 

cause, the Court shall impose the costs incurred in effecting service.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 6, 2020 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:18-cv-01640-BAM Document 35 Filed 04/06/20 Page 3 of 3