Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00732/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-00732-8/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Michael Holtsinger

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-03-0732 MCE CMK 

vs.

J.M. Briddle, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER 

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brought this civil right action alleging

that defendants were deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s medical needs in violation of the Eighth

Amendment. On February 11, 2005, plaintiff filed a request for authorization to serve defendant

Knight by publication. In support of his motion, plaintiff states that he has attempted to locate

defendant Knight’s address for service through discovery and public records requests and has

sought judicial intervention. 

I.. Background

The record reveals that on August 9, 2004, this court ordered plaintiff to utilize

discovery and the California Public Record’s Act to locate defendant Knight. The court also

informed plaintiff that if access to the requested information was denied or unreasonably delayed,

he could seek judicial intervention. On September 28, 2004, plaintiff filed a request for judicial

Case 2:03-cv-00732-MCE -CMK Document 123 Filed 08/30/05 Page 1 of 3
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

2

intervention, alleging that neither requests to High Desert State Prison and to the California

Department of Corrections under the California Public Records Act nor discovery requests to the

other defendants have elicited a response allowing plaintiff to provide the court with a service

address for defendant Knight. Accordingly, On October 5, 2005, the court directed defendants’

attorney to query the Department of Corrections (CDC) to ascertain the whereabouts of defendant

Knight. 

On October 19, 2004, the defendants’ attorney informed the court of defendant

Knight’s business address. However, in a letter dated January 12, 2005, defendants’ attorney

informed the court that defendant Knight had separated from CDC employment on December 12,

2003, is no longer a current CDC employee and there is no current business address. 

II. Discussion

The seminal issue in all litigation is jurisdiction and foremost to establishing

jurisdiction is service of process. See e.g., Beecher v. Wallace, 381 F.2d 372 (9th Cir.

1967)(stating that defendants must be served in accordance with the Rules of Civil Procedure or

there is no personal jurisdiction). 

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that a person from whom a waiver of

service has not been obtained may be served “pursuant to the law of the state in which the district

court is located...” Fed. R. Civ. P 4(e)(1). The California Code of Civil Procedure provides that

“a summons may be served by publication if upon affidavit it appears to the satisfaction of the

court in which the action is pending that the party to be served cannot with reasonable diligence

be served in another manner and that...a cause of action exists against the party...” Cal. Code Civ.

P. § 415.50. The court is not yet satisfied that defendant Knight’s address for service cannot be

ascertained by means other than publication. 

It appears from the docket that the United States Marshal Service has sent waivers,

but has not yet attempted to personally serve defendant Knight. Paragraph six of the court’s order

directing the United States Marshal Service to serve defendants (doc. 84) states that if a waiver of

Case 2:03-cv-00732-MCE -CMK Document 123 Filed 08/30/05 Page 2 of 3
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

summons is not returned by a defendant, the United States Marshall shall personally serve

defendant and shall command all necessary assistance from the California Department of

Corrections to execute this order. The United States Marshal shall maintain the confidentiality of

all information provided by the CDC pursuant to this order. Therefore, because the United States

Marshal has not yet attempted to personally serve defendant Knight, the court is not satisfied that

defendant Knight cannot be served in any manner besides publication. Cal. Code Civil P. §

415.50. 

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

1. Plaintiff’s request to serve defendant Knight by publication (doc. 79) is

DENIED and;

2. In accordance with the court’s February 28, 2005 order directing the United

States Marshal to serve defendants, the U.S. Marshal is directed to personally serve process and a

copy of the February 28, 2005 order upon defendant Knight pursuant to Rule 4 of the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 566(c). In executing this order, the United States

Marshal shall command all necessary assistance from the CDC to personally serve process on

defendant Knight, including ascertaining any forwarding business and home address known to the

CDC. The Unites States Marshal shall maintain the confidentiality of all information provided by

the CDC pursuant to this order. 

DATED: August 29, 2005.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:03-cv-00732-MCE -CMK Document 123 Filed 08/30/05 Page 3 of 3