Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-03119/USCOURTS-caed-2_11-cv-03119-13/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID FLORENCE,

Plaintiff,

v.

A.W. NANGALAMA, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:11-cv-3119 GEB KJN P

ORDER

On March 25, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued an order charging defendant C. Bakewell 

for the costs of service of process. On August 15, 2014, defendant Bakewell filed a motion for 

reconsideration of that order. 

Local Rule 303(b), states “rulings by Magistrate Judges . . . shall be final if no 

reconsideration thereof is sought from the Court within fourteen days . . . from the date of service 

of the ruling on the parties.” Id. 

However, it appears that the March 25, 2014 order was inadvertently not served on 

defendant Bakewell. Defendant Bakewell first appeared and answered the third amended 

complaint on August 6, 2014. Accordingly, the court finds defendant’s motion to be timely filed. 

“[A] motion for reconsideration should not be granted, absent highly unusual 

circumstances, unless the district court is presented with newly discovered evidence, committed 

clear error, or if there is an intervening change in the controlling law.” 389 Orange Street 

Case 2:11-cv-03119-TLN-KJN Document 66 Filed 01/15/15 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

Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999) (no clear error where district court did not 

redesignate a cross-claim as an affirmative defense because party did not raise the issue until after 

grant of summary judgment). 

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure impose a duty on certain defendants “to avoid 

unnecessary costs of serving the summons.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(2). That duty is only imposed 

on a defendant “that receives notice of an action in the manner provided in this paragraph,” which 

is by mailing a notice of the action and a “request that the defendant waive service of a 

summons.” Id. If a defendant fails to waive the service of a summons, “the court shall impose 

the costs subsequently incurred in effecting service on the defendant unless good cause for the 

failure be shown.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d).

Defendant Bakewell avers that she was not personally contacted by the Marshal to request 

a waiver of service. (ECF No. 51 at 3.) Defendant Bakewell declares that she had no knowledge 

of the instant lawsuit or summons until she was personally served on February 25, 2014. 

Although the Marshal mailed summons and a request for a waiver of service on November 19, 

2013, to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) and California 

State Prison, Sacramento, defendant Bakewell declares that she resigned from the CDCR in 

September of 2009, and no one from the CDCR contacted her to advise her of the lawsuit or 

service. (ECF No. 51 at 3.)

Good cause appearing, defendant Bakewell’s motion for reconsideration is granted, and 

the order directing defendant Bakewell to pay the United States Marshal for the costs incurred in 

serving process is vacated.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant Bakewell’s motion for reconsideration is deemed timely filed;

2. Defendant Bakewell’s motion for reconsideration (ECF No. 51) is granted; and

3. The March 25, 2014 order (ECF No. 42) is vacated.

Dated: January 15, 2015

flor3119.851

Case 2:11-cv-03119-TLN-KJN Document 66 Filed 01/15/15 Page 2 of 2