Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02237/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-02237-1/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 - 06cv2237 LAB (WMC)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDDIE J. WAGNER,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 06cv2237 LAB (WMC)

ORDER RECONSIDERING

DENIAL OF EXTENSION OF TIME

IN WHICH TO SERVE

DEFENDANTS

vs.

R. ANTI, LT.; LEAPHART, CPT;

R. DAVIS, LT.; C. MCGUIERE, C/O;

K. THOMAS, C/O; J. RODRIGUEZ, C/O;

J. SPINNEY, MTA; BALTINEZ, R.N.; and

DR. SAND,

Defendants.

On October 5, 2006, Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se but not in forma pauperis,

filed his complaint. Plaintiff never obtained summonses from the Court Clerk either when

filing his complaint or as soon as possible afterwards, as required under Civil Local Rule

4.1(d). No proof of service was filed.

On April 11, 2007, the Court issued an order to show cause why the complaint should

not be dismissed for failure to serve any Defendants, noting Plaintiff was not entitled to

service by the U.S. Marshals’ Service. The Court also noted Plaintiff had taken no action

at all in the case after filing his complaint.

Plaintiff responded to the order to show cause, expressing his belief that the Court

would be issuing a screening order explaining the deficiencies in his complaint so that he

Case 3:06-cv-02237-LAB-WMC Document 13 Filed 08/08/07 Page 1 of 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

1

 The affidavits give various dates from June 14 to June 17 for service. On August

6, 2007, Plaintiff filed an affidavit stating that he had served all Defendants on June 17,

2007, although the affidavit makes clear he merely sent them copies of the complaint.

- 2 - 06cv2237 LAB (WMC)

could amend his complaint before serving it. Plaintiff stated that he had been waiting for this

order before serving. 

On June 7, 2007, the Court issued an order explaining that Plaintiff should not expect

a screening order such as he described, and ordering Plaintiff to serve all Defendants within

thirty days. The Court admonished Plaintiff that if he failed to serve within the time allotted,

his complaint might be dismissed without notice to him.

After this point, events are somewhat murky. According to a document filed July 27,

2007 and styled “Production of Proof of Service with Affidavit,” Plaintiff served Defendants

by mail at some point between June 14 and June 17,1 and Plaintiff attaches affidavits to this

effect. However, no summonses were issued in this case until July 2, when summonses for

all Defendants were issued. It appears what Plaintiff served was, however, merely a copy

of the complaint without the summons. (See Motion for Extension of Time, filed July 5,

2007, at 1:23–24 (“Plaintiff has served complaints of this action . . . .”).) Therefore, this effort

at service of process was ineffective. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c) (“A summons shall be served

together with a copy of the complaint.”) See also 1 Moore's Federal Practice § 4.50[2] (3d

Ed. 2007) (citing Bolivar v. Director of the FBI, 846 F. Supp. 163, 166 (D.P.R. 1994), aff’d

without op., 45 F.3d 423 (1st Cir. 1995)).

On July 5, Plaintiff moved for an extension of time, seeking an additional 45 days in

which to serve Defendants. He gave as the reasons for seeking this extension 1) he had

already served copies of the complaint on the Attorney General, 2) he had requested

summonses from the Clerk, and 3) he was an inmate. The Court, noting that Plaintiff had

not stated when he requested the summonses or otherwise shown cause for the delay,

denied the request for an extension. The Court did, however, grant Plaintiff an additional 30

days in which to file proof that he had served Defendants as ordered.

When Plaintiff filed his “Production of Proof of Service with Affidavit,” on July 27,

2007, he attached a copy of prison mailroom records showing when he sent mail, and when

Case 3:06-cv-02237-LAB-WMC Document 13 Filed 08/08/07 Page 2 of 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

- 3 - 06cv2237 LAB (WMC)

mail for him was received. Plaintiff’s reasoning in attaching these records appears to relate

to an attempt to show when he mailed the complaints which, as noted above, does not

constitute effective service of process. Plaintiff also, for reasons that are not fully clear, has

attached a certified mail receipt showing something was sent to the Attorney General on July

18, 2007. He also, in a filing dated July 30, 2007, attempted to show he had served the

Attorney General by attaching a certified mail receipt dated July 23, 2007. To date,

however, Plaintiff has filed no acceptable proofs of service. It is clear Plaintiff knows

what proof of service is and has access to appropriate proof of service forms, because he

has repeatedly attached them to his filings.

The Court has, however, reviewed the mailroom logs, and has determined from them

that Plaintiff must have requested summonses from the Clerk on June 20, 2007 and

received them on July 16, 2007. In view of this, the Court is now satisfied that Plaintiff acted

with reasonable diligence in response to its June 7, 2007 order requiring him to serve

Defendants within thirty days. The Court therefore now reconsiders its order of July 10,

2007, and now GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time in which to serve

Defendants. 

Plaintiff is hereby ORDERED to serve Defendants with process as required under

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 no later than August 31, 2007. He must then file with the Court proofs of

service as to all Defendants no later than September 7, 2007. Plaintiff is suing Defendants

in their individual capacities, see Hydrick v. Hunter, 466 F.3d 676, 688 (9th Cir. 2006)

(explaining that damages under 28 U.S.C. § 1983 are available against state officials only

in their individual capacities) (citations omitted), and must file proofs of service as required

under all applicable rules. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e). See also, e.g., Jackson v. Hayakawa,

682 F.2d 1344, 1347–48 (9th Cir. 1982).

In view of the repeated extensions Plaintiff has been granted, and the Court’s

repeated admonitions to take steps to serve Defendants with process, the Court will grant

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:06-cv-02237-LAB-WMC Document 13 Filed 08/08/07 Page 3 of 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

- 4 - 06cv2237 LAB (WMC)

no further extensions of time without a showing of extraordinarily good cause. Should

Plaintiff fail to serve Defendants as ordered by August 31, 2007, or fail to file proofs

of service by September 7, 2007, this case will be dismissed without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 8, 2007

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-02237-LAB-WMC Document 13 Filed 08/08/07 Page 4 of 4