Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-00731/USCOURTS-cand-4_07-cv-00731-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

 

 LAW OFFICES OF 

 MICHAEL E. ADAMS

 702 M ARSHALL ST., #300 1

REDWOOD CITY CA 94063 

 (650) 364-3346 First Amended Complaint for Federal Civil Rights Violations and Disability Discrimination

 

MICHAEL E. ADAMS (SBN: 47278)

LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL E. ADAMS

702 Marshall Street, Suite 300

Redwood City, CA 94063

Telephone: (650) 599-9463

Fax: (650) 599-9785

Attorney for Plaintiff

BRADLEY G. DREHER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRADLEY G. DREHER,

Plaintiff,

vs.

JILL BROWN, DR. WILSON, SUE

MORRIS, GARY T. STANTON, and

DOES 1 to 50,

Defendants.

__________________________________

Case No. C-07-00731 SBA

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO

ENLARGE TIME FOR SERVICE

OF PROCESS UPON

DEFENDANT SUE MORRIS;

SUPPORTING DECLARATION;

SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM

OF POINTS AND

AUTHORITIES; PROPOSED

ORDER

Plaintiff Bradley G. Dreher hereby moves, pursuant to Local Rule 6-3, for an order

enlarging by fourteen days from issuance thereof the time within which Defendant Sue

Morris must be served with process. This motion is based on the supporting declaration

and supporting memorandum of points and authorities hereinbelow.

DATED: May 23, 2007

/s/ Michael E. Adams

_________________________________

MICHAEL E. ADAMS

Attorney for Plaintiff

BRADLEY G. DREHER

///

Case 4:07-cv-00731-SBA Document 17 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 1 of 5 Case 4:07-cv-00731-SBA Document 23 Filed 09/19/07 Page 1 of 5
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

 

 LAW OFFICES OF 

 MICHAEL E. ADAMS

 702 M ARSHALL ST., #300 2

REDWOOD CITY CA 94063 

 (650) 364-3346 First Amended Complaint for Federal Civil Rights Violations and Disability Discrimination

 

SUPPORTING DECLARATION

I, MICHAEL E. ADAMS, hereby declare:

1. I am the attorney of record herein for Plaintiff Bradley G. Dreher.

2. On November 30, 2006, I filed the complaint herein in the Superior Court for

the County of Marin.

3. By mid-January, 2007, I effected service of process upon two of the four named

defendants herein, namely Gary T. Stanton (Solano County Sheriff) and Jill Brown

(warden of San Quentin State Prison during the involved events). On February 5,

Defendant Stanton removed this case to the above-entitled court, and on February 7,

Defendant Brown joined in the removal. 

4. As to Defendant Gilbert Wilson, M.D., who had been on the medical staff of

San Quentin State Prison during the involved events, I retained a licensed investigator,

John Stevenot, to ascertain his present whereabouts on January 25. A few days later, Mr.

Stevenot provided me with an investigation report indicating that Defendant Wilson was

currently working at the Alameda County Jail at Santa Rita, and after numerous efforts

my process server succeeded in effecting service on Defendant Wilson in early March. 

Defendant Wilson appeared herein on May 16.

5. As to Defendant Morris, I telephoned the Fairfield parole office in mid-January

to inquire about her present whereabouts, in that she had been stationed at that

office as Plaintiff’s parole officer during the involved events. That office informed

me that Defendant Morris had transferred to Sacramento, where she was 

functioning in a different capacity for the Department of Corrections, and gave me

another telephone number that I was informed might lead to her. I immediately called

that number, but found myself caught in a telephone tree of recorded messages, so

decided to enlist my above investigator to locate her. On January 23, I faxed him a memo

seeking to locate both Defendant Morris and, as stated above, Defendant Wilson. 

However, by inadvertent error, I referred to Defendant Morris as Jill Brown, another of

Case 4:07-cv-00731-SBA Document 17 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 2 of 5 Case 4:07-cv-00731-SBA Document 23 Filed 09/19/07 Page 2 of 5
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

My memo to Mr. Stevenot stated: 1

“January 23, 2007

INVESTIGATION MEMO

TO: JOHN STEVENOT

FAX: 650/592-1318

FR: MIKE ADAMS

CLIENT (use this name in billing me): DREHER

TODO: FIND TWO OF THE DEFENDANTS (JILL BROWN and DR. WILSON

FACTS: This case concerns the failure of custodial personnel to treat plaintiff, Bradley Dreher, for his

HIV-positive condition, and related claims. Regarding the defendants to find:

...Jill Brown was Mr. Dreher’s parole officer in the Fairfield parole office (707/428-2016) in

2004. I called there and was told that she transferred to Sacto, where she is performing some sort of

personnel or HR function for the Dept of Corrections as a “personnel specialist”. A possibly useful

telephone number: 916/324-6919

...Dr. Wilson was on the medical staff at San Quentin State Prison in 8/04; I don’t know if he is

still there or where.”

The amended memo stated: 

2

January 23, 2007

AMENDED INVESTIGATION MEMO

1-28-07

TO: JOHN STEVENOT

FAX: 650/592-1318

FR: MIKE ADAMS

CLIENT (use this name in billing me): DREHER

TODO: FIND ONE REMAINING DEFT: SUE MORRIS

FACTS: This case concerns the failure of custodial personnel to treat plaintiff, Bradley Dreher, for his

HIV-positive condition, and related claims. Regarding the defendant to find (note that my last memo

mistakenly gave you the below info re Jill Brown):

...Sue Morris was Mr. Dreher’s parole officer in the Fairfield parole office (707/428-2016) in

2004. I called there and was told that she transferred to Sacto, where she is performing some sort of

personnel or HR function for the Dept of Corrections as a “personnel specialist”. A possibly useful

telephone number: 916/324-6919

 

 LAW OFFICES OF 

 MICHAEL E. ADAMS

 702 M ARSHALL ST., #300 3

REDWOOD CITY CA 94063 

 (650) 364-3346 First Amended Complaint for Federal Civil Rights Violations and Disability Discrimination

 

the four Defendants who, as stated above, had already been located and served. I caught 1

this error a few days later, and faxed Mr. Stevenot an amended memo on January 27 in an

effort to cure the error. However, I learned today from Mr. Stevenot that the similarity in 2

format and wording of the two memos had led him to misinterpret the second memo as 

merely reiterating the investigation task that he had just completed in response to the first

Case 4:07-cv-00731-SBA Document 17 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 3 of 5 Case 4:07-cv-00731-SBA Document 23 Filed 09/19/07 Page 3 of 5
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

 

 LAW OFFICES OF 

 MICHAEL E. ADAMS

 702 M ARSHALL ST., #300 4

REDWOOD CITY CA 94063 

 (650) 364-3346 First Amended Complaint for Federal Civil Rights Violations and Disability Discrimination

 

memo, and that he consequently performed no further work in response to the second

memo. In the meantime, based on my many years of experience with Mr. Stevenot as a

diligent investigator, I mistakenly assumed that he was still trying to locate Defendant

Morris as I had requested in the second memo.

6. At my request today, Mr. Stevenot did commence efforts to locate Defendant

Morris. At his request, the Fairfield parole office sent an e-mail to Defendant Morris

conveying his request that she contact him. He also located a litigation coordinator in the

Oakland office of the Department of Corrections who has undertaken to contact Defendant

Morris and seek her permission to accept service of process in her behalf. I am therefore

sanguine that service of process can be effected upon Defendant Morris within two further

weeks of effort to contact and serve her with process.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Signed this

23 day of May, 2007 in Palo Alto, CA.

rd

/s/ Michael E. Adams

______________________________

MICHAEL E. ADAMS

SUPPORTING MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 4, provides in pertinent part as follows:

“(m) Time Limit for Service. If service of the summons and

complaint is not made upon a defendant within 120 days after

the filing of the complaint, the court, upon motion or on its own

initiative after notice to the plaintiff, shall dismiss the action 

without prejudice as to that defendant or direct that service be

effected within a specified time; provided that if the plaintiff

shows good cause for the failure, the court shall extend the

time for an appropriate period. . . .”

As applied to a removal case such as this one, the 120 day period prescribed in the above

rule arguably does not start to run until the date of removal. If so, this period will not have

run until June 5, 2007, given the removal date herein of February 5, 2007. 

Alternatively, conceding arguendo that the 120 day period started to run herein upon the

filing of the complaint in state court on November 30, 2006, the foregoing rule appears to

Case 4:07-cv-00731-SBA Document 17 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 4 of 5 Case 4:07-cv-00731-SBA Document 23 Filed 09/19/07 Page 4 of 5
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

 

 LAW OFFICES OF 

 MICHAEL E. ADAMS

 702 M ARSHALL ST., #300 5

REDWOOD CITY CA 94063 

 (650) 364-3346 First Amended Complaint for Federal Civil Rights Violations and Disability Discrimination

 

give this court the discretion to specify a time for effecting service upon the remaining

defendant even without a showing of good cause (and thereafter to extend the time for

service if good cause is shown for doing so). Herein, Plaintiff asks only that the court

specify a two week time period within which to effect service. Although it would appear

unnecessary to establish good cause for this initial specification of a further time period to

effect service, Plaintiff submits that he has in fact so shown in the foregoing declaration,

e.g. he has been both diligent and timely in locating and serving process upon the other

three named defendants, and, but for a miscommunication between his counsel and the

latter’s investigator, would likewise have timely served the remaining defendant. It is in

the interest of justice to permit Plaintiff a reasonable opportunity to effect service upon the

remaining defendant, so that a full and complete adjudication of Plaintiff’s claims on the 

merits can be obtained.

DATED: May 23, 2007

_____________________________

MICHAEL E. ADAMS

Attorney for Plaintiff

BRADLEY G. DREHER

PROPOSED ORDER

The court having reviewed Plaintiff’s motion to enlarge time,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff shall have fourteen days from issuance of this

order within which to effect service of process upon Defendant Sue Morris.

DATED: May ___, 2007

____________________________________

HON. SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG

U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

Case 4:07-cv-00731-SBA Document 17 Filed 05/24/2007 Page 5 of 5

XXXXXXXXX September 19, 2007

Case 4:07-cv-00731-SBA Document 23 Filed 09/19/07 Page 5 of 5