Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_02-cv-05603/USCOURTS-cand-5_02-cv-05603-9/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

Order of Personal Service 

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Rmw\Cr.02\Jenkins603srvcaplan.wpd

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT LEE JENKINS, JR., 

Plaintiff,

 v.

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER 

CAPLAN, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 02-5603 RMW (PR)

ORDER OF PERSONAL SERVICE

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights complaint alleging

violations of his federal constitutional rights by prison staff at the Correctional Training Facility

in Soledad, California. This action has been pending since November 26, 2002. On July 21,

2008, the court issued a summons to defendant Correctional Officer Caplan. On July 31, 2008,

the summons was returned unexecuted because the facility would not accept service without

more detailed information. On March 4, 2009, plaintiff gave more information regarding

defendant Caplan and on March 20, 2009, the court re-issued a summons to defendant Caplan. 

However, on May 26, 2009, the summons was again returned as unexecuted. This time, service

was not completed because defendant Caplan was no longer at the facility. On July 6, 2009, the

court requested the litigation coordinator at Salinas Valley State Prison, where the Marshal last

*E-FILED - 2/9/10*

Case 5:02-cv-05603-RMW Document 119 Filed 02/09/10 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

27

28

Order of Personal Service 

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Rmw\Cr.02\Jenkins603srvcaplan.wpd 2

attempted service on defendant Caplan, to provide defendant Caplan’s last known place of

employment. On September 22, 2009, the litigation coordinator informed the court that

defendant Caplan was working at California Rehabilitation Center in Norco, California. 

Thereafter, on September 28, 2009, the court re-issued a summons to defendant Caplan.

To date, no summons has been returned either executed or unexecuted. 

Accordingly, it is hereby ordered as follows: 

1. The clerk of the court shall issue summons and the United States Marshal shall 

personally serve within 14 days of the filing date of this order without prepayment of fees, a

copy of the third amended complaint, all attachments thereto, and a copy of this order upon: D.

Caplan at the California Rehabilitation Center, 5th Street and Western, Norco, California. 

The clerk shall also mail a courtesy copy of this order and the third amended complaint, with all

attachments thereto, to the California Attorney General’s Office. 

2. In order to expedite the resolution of this case: 

a. defendant shall, within sixty (60) days from the date he is served with the

complaint, file a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion, or shall notify the

court that he is of the opinion that this case cannot be resolved by such a motion. The motion

shall be supported by adequate factual documentation and shall conform in all respects to

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56.

Defendant is advised that summary judgment cannot be granted, nor qualified immunity

found, if material facts are in dispute. If defendant is of the opinion that this case cannot be

resolved by summary judgment, he shall so inform the court prior to the date the summary

judgment motion is due. 

All papers filed with the court shall be served promptly on plaintiff.

b. Plaintiff’s opposition to the dispositive motion shall be filed with the

Court and served on defendant’s counsel not later than thirty (30) days from the date

defendants’ motion is filed. The Ninth Circuit has held that the following notice should be given

to pro se plaintiffs:

The defendants have made a motion for summary judgment by which they seek

Case 5:02-cv-05603-RMW Document 119 Filed 02/09/10 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

27

28

Order of Personal Service 

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Rmw\Cr.02\Jenkins603srvcaplan.wpd 3

to have your case dismissed. A motion for summary judgment under Rule 56 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will, if granted, end your case.

Rule 56 tells you what you must do in order to oppose a motion for summary

judgment. Generally, summary judgment must be granted when there is no

genuine issue of material fact--that is, if there is no real dispute about any fact

that would affect the result of your case, the party who asked for summary

judgment is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, which will end your case.

When a party you are suing makes a motion for summary judgment that is

properly supported by declarations (or other sworn testimony), you cannot simply

rely on what your complaint says. Instead, you must set out specific facts in

declarations, depositions, answers to interrogatories, or authenticated documents,

as provided in Rule 56(e), that contradict the facts shown in the defendant's

declarations and documents and show that there is a genuine issue of material fact

for trial. If you do not submit your own evidence in opposition, summary

judgment, if appropriate, may be entered against you. If summary judgment is

granted in favor of defendants, your case will be dismissed and there will be no

trial.

See Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 963 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc).

Plaintiff is advised to read Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Celotex

Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986) (holding party opposing

summary judgment must come forward with evidence showing triable issues of material fact on

every essential element of his claim). Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to file an opposition to

defendants’ motion for summary judgment may be deemed to be a consent by plaintiff to the

granting of the motion, and granting of judgment against plaintiff without a trial. See Ghazali v.

Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam).

c. Defendant may file a reply brief no later than fifteen (15) days after

plaintiff’s opposition is filed.

d. The motion shall be deemed submitted as of the date the reply brief is due.

No hearing will be held on the motion unless the court so orders at a later date.

3. Discovery may be taken in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. No

further Court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2) or Local Rule 16-1 is

required before the parties may conduct discovery.

For plaintiff’s information, the proper manner of promulgating discovery is to send

demands for documents or interrogatories (questions asking for specific, factual responses)

directly to defendant’s counsel. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 33-34. The scope of discovery is limited to

Case 5:02-cv-05603-RMW Document 119 Filed 02/09/10 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

27

28

Order of Personal Service 

P:\PRO-SE\SJ.Rmw\Cr.02\Jenkins603srvcaplan.wpd 4

matters “relevant to the claim or defense of any party . . .” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(1).

Discovery may be further limited by court order if “(i) the discovery sought is unreasonably

cumulative or duplicative, or is obtainable from some other source that is more convenient, less

burdensome, or less expensive; (ii) the party seeking discovery has had ample opportunity by

discovery in the action to obtain the information sought; or (iii) the burden or expense of the

proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(2). In order to comply

with the requirements of Rule 26, before deciding to promulgate discovery plaintiff may find it

to his benefit to wait until defendant has filed a dispositive motion which could include some

or all of the discovery plaintiff might seek. In addition, no motion to compel will be considered

by the court unless the meet-and-confer requirement of Rule 37(a)(2)(B) and N.D. Cal. Local

Rule 37-1 has been satisfied. Because plaintiff is incarcerated he is not required to meet and

confer with defendants in person. Rather, if his discovery requests are denied and he intends to

file a motion to compel, he must send a letter to defendant to that effect, offering him one last

opportunity to provide him with the information sought.

4. All communications by plaintiff with the court must be served on defendant’s counsel

once counsel has been designated, by mailing a true copy of the document to defendant’s

counsel.

5. It is plaintiff’s responsibility to prosecute this case. Plaintiff must keep the court and

the parties informed of any change of address and must comply with the court’s orders in a

timely fashion. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action for failure to prosecute

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: _________________ RONALD M. WHYTE

 United States District Judge

2/8/10

Case 5:02-cv-05603-RMW Document 119 Filed 02/09/10 Page 4 of 4