Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01267/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-01267-8/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

 Defendants also argue that this Court should reconsider its Order because, “Counsel

has contacted Kern Valley State Prison and been informed that after checking four different

employee roster[s], there is no person named Sather who is employed at the prison.” Doc.

#50 at n. 2. This Court takes judicial notice that in 1:08-cv-845-JAT (E.D. Cal. (Fresno)),

Sergeant Sather has been served and has answered. Therefore, while counsel may be correct

that he is not a currently employed, the Court is unpersuaded that he was not employed at the

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

Sy Lee Castle, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

M. Knowles, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 1:08-01267-JAT

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion for reconsideration of this Court’s

order allowing Plaintiff to issue subpoenas to attempt to locate an address for Defendant

Sather. Defendants point out that the delay in serving Sather to this point has been largely

Plaintiff’s own fault due to his poor handwriting and his failure to timely advise the Court

that the Court was misinterpreting his handwriting. Defendants make a valid point. And,

because of these delays which were caused by Plaintiff, the February 2, 2010 order will be

Plaintiff’s last opportunity to accomplish service. However, the Court will allow Plaintiff

this one last avenue to attempt to gain Defendant Sather’s address for service.1

Case 1:08-cv-01267-JAT Document 51 Filed 04/30/10 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

time of this incident. Therefore, Plaintiff’s efforts at service are not futile.

- 2 -

Consistent with the February 2, 2010 Order, on February 23, 2010, Plaintiff returned

his completed subpoenas to attempt to obtain Sather’s address. The Clerk’s office forwarded

the subpoenas to the USM-Sacramento for service. There is no further status noted in the

record. To ensure the progress of this case, the Court will require a status report from the

Marshals.

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for reconsideration (Doc. #50) is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall forward a copy of this

Order to the Marshals.

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that by May 19, 2010, the Marshals’ office shall file a

status report advising whether the subpoenas forwarded to them on February 23, 2010 have

been served as required by the February 2, 2010 Order.

DATED this 30th day of April, 2010.

Case 1:08-cv-01267-JAT Document 51 Filed 04/30/10 Page 2 of 2