Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00904/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00904-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LE ROI JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

 v.

CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, et al.,

Defendants /

No. C-07-0904 MMC

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME;

DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO

REISSUE SUBPOENAS WITHOUT

PREJUDICE; GRANTING LEAVE TO

FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

Before the Court are two motions filed by plaintiff. In his first motion, filed August 24,

2007, plaintiff seeks an extension of time, based on plaintiff’s inability to “make dates and

schedules in this court” due to his incarceration, (see Pl.’s Mot. filed August 24, 2007 at 1),

an order allowing plaintiff “to physically access the [prison] law library” and to possess a

pen, (see id.), and for the Clerk’s Office to send him pleading paper and two copies of the

“Handbook for Litigants without a Lawyer,” (see id. at 1-2). In his second motion, filed

September 5, 2007, plaintiff requests the Court “reissue subpoenas” because plaintiff has

learned that the correct name of defendant “Officer Wenk” is “William Zenk,” and that the

defendant identified as “unnamed corporal” in plaintiff’s complaint is “Corporal Hartung.” 

Case 3:07-cv-00904-MMC Document 38 Filed 10/30/07 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

 No opposition to either motion has been filed, for the reason that each defendant

who previously appeared in the case was dismissed prior to the filing of said motions. 

2

(See Pl.’s Mot. filed September 5, 2007 at 1-2).1

To assist the Court in scheduling matters, the Court directed plaintiff, in an order

filed September 25, 2007, to provide the date upon which he anticipates being released

from incarceration. Plaintiff has advised the Court that his anticipated release date is

November 12, 2007. (See Pl.’s “Release Date Information” filed October 2, 2007.)

A. Motion for Extension of Time

 Although plaintiff does not specify in the motion a particular deadline he is seeking

to extend, (see Pl.’s Mot. at 1), the Court construes plaintiff’s motion as requesting an

extension of the deadline for plaintiff to effectuate service on defendants Certified Towing

and Officer Wenk, (see Order filed July 31, 2007 (directing plaintiff to effectuate service on

said defendants, or to provide the Court with accurate information for said defendants by

September 3, 2007)).

In light of plaintiff’s incarceration, and given plaintiff’s impending release date,

plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to effectuate service on defendants Certified

Towing and Officer Wenk is hereby GRANTED as follows:

1. With respect to Certified Towing, no later than December 19, 2007, plaintiff must

either (a) himself effectuate, and file proof of, service on defendant Certified Towing or

(b) provide the Court, in writing, with accurate information such that the United States

Marshal is able to effectuate service on plaintiff’s behalf. If plaintiff fails to comply with this

order by said date, plaintiff’s claims against defendant Certified Towing will be dismissed

without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

2. With respect to Officer Wenk, plaintiff must file proof of service on said defendant

under said defendant’s correct name no later than December 19, 2007. 

In light of said extension and plaintiff’s impending release from incarceration,

plaintiff’s requests for an order allowing plaintiff access to the prison law library, to possess

Case 3:07-cv-00904-MMC Document 38 Filed 10/30/07 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

a pen, and for the Clerk to send plaintiff pleading paper are hereby DENIED. The

impairment of plaintiff’s capacity to litigate due to imprisonment, in actions other than those

to attack his sentence or to challenge the conditions of his confinement, “is simply one of

the incidental (and perfectly constitutional) consequences of conviction and incarceration.” 

See Lewis v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 355 (1996). Moreover, plaintiff has demonstrated his

ability to access the courts with the writing materials available to him. With respect to

plaintiff’s request for the “Handbook for Litigants without a Lawyer,” plaintiff has failed to

provide any explanation as to why two copies of said Handbook are necessary. Further,

upon plaintiff’s release from custody, plaintiff may obtain from the Clerk’s Office a copy of

the Handbook, at no cost to himself. Accordingly, plaintiff’s request that copies of the

Handbook be mailed to him is hereby DENIED. 

B. Motion to Reissue Subpoenas

The Court construes plaintiff’s motion to “reissue subpoenas” as a request to reissue

the summons with the correct information regarding defendant “Wenk”s true name, and to

issue service of process for an individual identified as “Corporal Hartung.” 

Plaintiff states in said motion he has “learned the names of the officers in the

subpoenas.” (See Pl.’s Mot. filed September 5, 2007 at 1). In particular, plaintiff asserts,

“the officers’ names are ‘William Zenk’ not ‘Wenk’ and Corporal Hartung, both of the El

Cerrito Police Department.” (See id. at 1-2.) Plaintiff requests the Court issue process with

the names he provides. Neither “William Zenk,” nor “Corporal Hartung,” however, is named

as a defendant in the complaint. (See Compl. at 2:2 (listing, among others, “Officer Wenk”

and “unnamed corporal” as defendants)). Accordingly, plaintiff’s request to issue process

for said individuals is hereby DENIED without prejudice.

If plaintiff wishes to pursue his claims against said individuals, plaintiff must file an

“Amended Complaint,” in which he sets forth all of his claims and names all of the

defendants against whom he brings those claims. The Court hereby GRANTS plaintiff

leave to file, no later than November 28, 2007, an Amended Complaint, as set forth above. 

Case 3:07-cv-00904-MMC Document 38 Filed 10/30/07 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

If plaintiff timely files such Amended Complaint, plaintiff may obtain from the Clerk of the

Court summons for each such individual defendant and provide them to the United States 

Marshal for service.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 30, 2007 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00904-MMC Document 38 Filed 10/30/07 Page 4 of 4