Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_04-cv-00555/USCOURTS-casd-3_04-cv-00555-1/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 04cv0555

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ENRIQUE MIRANDA, Civil

No.

04-CV-0555 LAB (CAB)

Plaintiff,

ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR

RE-SERVICE OF DEFENDANTS 

[Doc. # 81]

v.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF

HOMELAND SECURITY, et al.

Defendants.

This case was brought by a detainee of the United States Department of Homeland Security

under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). 

Plaintiff Enrique Miranda (“Plaintiff” or “Miranda”) is proceeding pro se. Plaintiff is moving to have

Defendants served for a second time according to “Plaintiff’s special instructions.” Plaintiff’s motion is

GRANTED to the extent that he seeks to have Defendants served in their individual capacities. 

The First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) names six Defendants in their individual capacities. 

(FAC, p. 1). Plaintiff has made several unsuccessful attempts to effect service. On May 17, 2007, the

Court afforded Plaintiff one more opportunity to serve Defendants. Plaintiff was ordered to submit to

the United States Marshals’ Service, for each Defendant, a properly completed summons, a Form 285, a

copy of the First Amended Complaint, and a copy of the Court’s May 17, 2007 Order. The United

States Marshal was ordered to serve each Defendant as directed by Plaintiff on Form 285. Plaintiff was

also ordered to file a declaration stating what materials he submitted to the United States Marshals’

Case 3:04-cv-00555-JLS-CAB Document 82 Filed 07/06/07 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 04cv0555

Service (“the Marshals”). 

On June 4, Plaintiff filed the declaration and described the instructions he gave to the Marshals. 

The instructions stated, “Please serve each defendant INDIVIDUALLY in person, in their individual

capacity.” (Pl.’s Decl. in Compl. with Court’s Order, Ex. 1, p. 1). On June 8, 2007, the United States

Marshals served the six named Defendants by certified mail. [Doc. ## 74-79]. The Form 285 for each

Defendant is accompanied by the return receipts from the Office of General Counsel for the United

States Department of Homeland Security. The return receipt is stamped “service accepted in official

capacity only.” Id. Plaintiff argues that the Marshals failed to follow his instructions, did not effect

proper service, and seeks sanctions. 

It appears that Defendants have only been served in their official capacities. The First Amended

Complaint indicates that Plaintiff sued Defendants in their individual capacity. (See FAC, p. 1). His

instructions directed the Marshals to serve Defendants in their individual capacities. It also appears that

the failure to serve Defendants in their individual capacities was not due to any fault of Plaintiff’s. The

Court, however, finds no cause for imposing sanctions on the United States Marshals’ Service. 

Plaintiff must be afforded another opportunity for complete and proper service. Plaintiff may, no

later than August 6, 2007, submit to the United States Marshals’ Service the following for each

individual Defendant: a properly completed summons, a Form 285, a copy of the First Amended

Complaint, and a copy of this Order. If Plaintiff desires to have Defendants served in their individual

capacities, he shall so directly state on Form 285. The United States Marshal is ordered to serve each

Defendant as directed by Plaintiff on Form 285, within 14 calendar days of the receipt of Plaintiff’s

papers. In the interests of judicial efficiency, the Court notes that should Plaintiff’s instructions

regarding service again indicate that Defendants are to be served in their individual capacities, the

United States Marshal shall follow those instructions. All costs of service shall be advanced by the

United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2).

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 6, 2007

CATHY ANN BENCIVENGO

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:04-cv-00555-JLS-CAB Document 82 Filed 07/06/07 Page 2 of 2