Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-00082/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-00082-3/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GENE WOODHAM,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-09-0082 GGH P

vs.

RN DATOR, et al., 

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Pending before the court is the U.S. Marshal’s February 8, 2010, request for

reimbursement for the cost of personal service of defendant . On February 16, 2009, defendants

filed objections to this request. For the following reasons, defendants are ordered to reimburse

the U.S. Marshal for the cost of personal service.

On January 12, 2009, plaintiff filed the original complaint. On March 31, 2009,

plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On April 20, 2009, the undersigned found that the

complaint stated a colorable claim against defendants Dator, Stormes, Wholer, Cook, SoltanianZadeh and B. Williams, but dismissed the claims against the remaining defendants with thirty

days to file a second amended complaint. Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on April

30, 2009. On July 22, 2009, found the claims of the second amended complaint appropriate for

service on defendants Registered Nurse (RN) Dator; RN Stormes; RN S. Wholer; Licensed

Case 2:09-cv-00082-WBS-GGH Document 36 Filed 03/15/10 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

 These defendants had received an extension of time to respond to the second amended 1

complaint by Order, filed on December 3, 2009. In their motion to dismiss, subsequently filed on

January 19, 2010, defendants indicated in a note that to their knowledge, defendant Wholer had

not been yet located or served at that point.

 In Docket No.33, it is clear that the US Marshals service made a typographical error in 2

assessing the cost per each of those four defendants as $90.50, rather than $95.50, in light of the

costs assessed therein. 

2

Vocational Nurse (LVN) R. Cook; Dr. J. Soltanian-Zadeh; Dr. B. Williams and ordered plaintiff

to return the forms necessary to effect service of on the defendants within thirty days. On August

18, 2009, plaintiff returned these forms, and on August 31, 2009, the undersigned ordered the

U.S. Marshal to serve defendants Dator; Stormes; Wholer; Cook; Soltanian-Zadeh; and B.

Williams. This order directed the Marshal to notify defendant within ten days of the

commencement of the action and to request a waiver of service of summons in accordance with

Fed. R Civ. P. 4(d) and 28 U.S.C. § 566(c). The August 31, 2009, order further stated that if a

waiver of summons was not returned within sixty days from the date of the mailing of the request

for waiver, the U.S. Marshal was to personally serve defendant. 

On October 2, 2009, the U.S. Marshal mailed the waivers to defendants Wholer;

Stormes; Dator; Soltanian-Zadeh; Cook; and Williams. On January 19, 2010, defendants

Williams, Dator, Stormes, Soltanian-Zadeh and Cook filed a motion to dismiss but did not 1

return the waivers. After not receiving the waivers within sixty days, on February 3, 2010, the

U.S. Marshal personally served defendants Wholer, Dator, Stormes, and Soltanian-Zadeh at

Mule Creek State Prison. Docket Nos. 24, 26. The total cost of personal service for these

defendants was $382.00; the cost for each is $95.50. Docket No. 33. On February 8, 2010, 2

defendant Williams was personally served at a cost of $55.50, and defendant Cook was

personally served on February 10, 2010, the cost for which was $321.00. Docket Nos. 30 and 31.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(2) provides that if a defendant located within the United

States fails, without good cause, to sign and return a waiver, the court may impose on the

defendant the expenses of personal service. In the opposition to the pending request, defendants

Case 2:09-cv-00082-WBS-GGH Document 36 Filed 03/15/10 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

3

Dator, Stormes and Soltanian-Zadeh (with no reference made to defendants Wholer, Cook and

Williams) do not address whether they had good cause for failing to return the waivers. Instead,

they argue that these defendants had already voluntarily appeared by way of their motion to

dismiss, filed on January 19, 2010; thus, there was no need for the Marshal’s Office to effect

service upon them on February 3, 2010.

While some of the defendants may have appeared in the action by filing the

motion to dismiss, this also does not excuse their failure to return the waivers. In essence,

defendants are suggesting that the court be required to check whether a waiver has been returned

each time a defendant, whom the court has ordered the U.S. Marshal to serve, makes an

appearance. If the waiver has not been returned, defendants are suggesting that the court be

required to inform the U.S. Marshal of the appearance so that no personal service occurs. 

The court does not have the resources to engage in the administrative task

defendants in essence are suggesting. Requiring a defendant to return the form, as he is required

to by the Federal Rules, is not unreasonable. 

Defendants have not shown good cause for their failure to return the waivers. The

emailed waivers that the Marshal’s Office notes as made on February 4, 2010, by defendants

Stormes, Dator and Soltanian-Zadeh (evidently after personal service was effected) were in no

way timely or adequate. Therefore, defendants Stormes, Dator and Soltanian-Zadeh are ordered

to pay the cost of service. In addition, defendants Cook and Williams have returned belated

waivers following the dates of personal service upon them, and defendant Wholer evidently has

never returned a waiver; therefore, each of these defendants are also responsible for the

respective cost of personal service upon them.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within fourteen days of the date of this order, defendants shall reimburse the

U.S. Marshal for the cost of personal service for a total of $382.00 for four of the defendants

divided individually in the amount of $95.50 owed by each for these four defendants Wholer;

Case 2:09-cv-00082-WBS-GGH Document 36 Filed 03/15/10 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

4

Stormes; Dator; and Soltanian-Zadeh; as for defendant Williams, the cost to be reimbursed is

$55.50; and for defendant Cook, the cost to be reimbursed is $321.00.

2. The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this order on Valerie Duran, U.S.

Marshals Service.

DATED: March 15, 2010

 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

wood0082.taxcost

Case 2:09-cv-00082-WBS-GGH Document 36 Filed 03/15/10 Page 4 of 4