Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_99-cv-04190/USCOURTS-cand-3_99-cv-04190-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ALONZO LEE TAYLOR, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

LINDA CLARKE, et al.,

Defendants. ___________________________ 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 99-4190 MMC (PR)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

COMPEL; DIRECTING CLERK OF

COURT TO SEND LETTER TO

OFFICE OF LEGAL AFFAIRS 

REQUESTING SERVICE ADDRESS

FOR DEFENDANT GRIFFIN

(Docket No. 113)

On September 10, 1999, plaintiff, a California prisoner incarcerated at the California

Training Facility (“CTF”) and proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled civil rights complaint

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In reviewing the Second Amended Complaint in accordance

with 42 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court, on February 18, 2004, found plaintiff had stated a

cognizable due process claim for deprivation of property against defendants Gary A. Craft

(“Craft”) and J.A. Soares (“Soares”), but found he had failed to state a cognizable claim that

any defendant had violated his constitutional right of access to the courts. Thereafter, on

October 28, 2004, the Court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s due process

claim, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff appealed

both dismissals. In an opinion filed February 21, 2006, the Ninth Circuit affirmed as to

plaintiff’s due process claim and remanded as to the right-to-access claim, with the following

findings:

Taylor alleged that the state court appointed an investigator to aid him in his

state habeas proceeding, that he had the permission of the warden for

confidential legal visits with the investigator, that prison personnel nevertheless

Case 3:99-cv-04190-MMC Document 115 Filed 08/03/07 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Defendant Craft, a county employee, was represented by County Counsel.

2

refused to mail his correspondence, that he grieved the refusal and prevailed

and that prison personnel still refused to mail his letter to the investigator. 

These allegations are sufficient to survive review under the screening provision

and require the government to respond. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A; see also Lewis

v. Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 351 (1996). 

On May 25, 2006, the Court ordered defendants to file a dispositive motion regarding

the access-to-courts claim found cognizable by the Ninth Circuit. Defendants Soares and

Craft thereafter correctly pointed out that in plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint, the only

defendant alleged to be involved in the access-to-courts claim found cognizable by the Ninth

Circuit is defendant A. Griffin (“Griffin”), who had not yet been served. Accordingly, on

July 26, 2006, the Court dismissed defendants Soares and Craft; by that same order the Court

directed the Clerk of the Court to issue summons and the United States Marshal to serve

Griffin at CTF, where plaintiff indicated Griffin was located. (See Second Amended

Complaint at 2.) On September 7, 2006, the Marshals Service returned the summons

unexecuted, stating they were “unable to locate” Griffin at CTF because there was “no such

individual by this name” there. 

On October 26, 2006, the Court found plaintiff’s complaint had been pending for over

120 days, and thus, under Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, was subject to

dismissal without prejudice against the unserved defendant, absent a showing of “good

cause.” Accordingly, the Court ordered plaintiff, within thirty days of the date the order was

filed, to either himself effect service on Griffin, or provide the Court with an accurate current

location such that the Marshal would be able to effect such service. The Court informed

plaintiff that his failure to do so would result in dismissal of this matter pursuant to Rule

4(m). On November 29, 2006, the Court granted plaintiff’s request for a thirty-day extension

of time to comply with the Court’s order.

Now before the Court is plaintiff’s motion to compel the state Attorney General

(“AG”), who was counsel of record for defendant Soares in this matter, to show cause why

sanctions and/or contempt findings should not be entered against him.1

 The basis for the

Case 3:99-cv-04190-MMC Document 115 Filed 08/03/07 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

motion is plaintiff’s contention the AG has failed to respond to his requests for a service

address for defendant Griffin, a state prison employee, and has refused to waive service on

Griffin’s behalf under Rule 4(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. In support of his

motion, plaintiff has filed a declaration in which he asserts that, in addition to having

requested service information from the AG, he has sent correspondence to the Litigation

Coordinator at CTF requesting such information, and has had an associate who is not a state

prisoner contact the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation headquarters in

Sacramento, and the State Personnel Board, in an attempt to obtain Griffin’s current job title

and assignment location. According to plaintiff, no response has been provided to any of

these inquiries. 

The Court finds plaintiff’s motion to compel is without merit. The State Attorney

General’s Office does not represent defendant Griffin (or any defendant in this action) at this

time and, thus, is under no legal obligation to provide plaintiff with service information for

Griffin or to waive service on Griffin’s behalf under Rule 4(d). Accordingly, the motion to

compel will be denied.

As noted, the Court’s order to show cause directed plaintiff to either himself effect

service on Griffin, or provide the Court with an accurate current location such that the

Marshal would be able to effect such service. Plaintiff was required to do so by

December 29, 2006. He has not done so. Consequently, the complaint is subject to

dismissal, as set forth in the Court’s order to show cause. In view of plaintiff’s asserted

efforts to obtain service information with respect to Griffin, however, and the asserted lack of

any response to his requests, the Court finds good cause exists under Rule 4(m) to provide

one final extension of time for service. 

Accordingly, the Court will direct the Clerk of the Court to send a letter to the Office

of Legal Affairs for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, requesting

assistance in obtaining a forwarding address for Griffin. If a forwarding address is provided,

the Court will direct the Clerk to issue a new summons, for purposes of the United States

Marshal’s making a renewed attempt to serve Griffin. If, however, the Office of Legal

Case 3:99-cv-04190-MMC Document 115 Filed 08/03/07 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Affairs informs the Court it has no forwarding address for Griffin, this action will be

dismissed under Rule 4(m). 

CONCLUSION

1. Plaintiff’s motion to compel the state Deputy Attorney General to show cause why

sanctions and/or contempt findings should not be entered against him (Docket No. 113) is

hereby DENIED. 

2. The Clerk is hereby DIRECTED to send a letter to the Office of Legal Affairs for

the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, as set forth above. If a

forwarding address for defendant Griffin is provided, the Clerk will be directed to issue

summons and the United States Marshal will be directed to make a renewed attempt to serve

Griffin. If, however, the Office of Legal Affairs informs the Court it has no forwarding

address for Griffin, this action will be dismissed under Rule 4(m). 

This order terminates Docket No.113.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: August 3, 2007 ________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:99-cv-04190-MMC Document 115 Filed 08/03/07 Page 4 of 4