Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01979/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01979-2/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

- 1 - 06cv1979

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM J. JONES, 

CDC #V-27774,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 06cv1979-LAB (AJB)

ORDER DISMISSING ACTION AS

TO DEFENDANTS DOVERY,

SAWTELL, KILPA, AND

ZENDEJAS

vs.

JOHN DOVERY, G.T. JANDA, L.E.

SCRIBNER, M.D. BOURLAND,

M. LEVIN, M. CORREA, L.C. ORDUNO,

D. SAWTELL, J. KELLERMAN,

MADDEN, T. OCHOA, KILPA,

ZENDEJAS, and V. BACH,

Defendants

On January 30, 2008, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why this action should

not be dismissed as to Defendants Dovery, Sawtell, Kilpa, and Zandejas because of

Plaintiff’s failure to serve them with process within 120 days as required by Fed. R. Civ. P.

4(m). 

Plaintiff has twice attempted service on these four Defendants. On the first attempt,

service was returned unexecuted for relatively trivial reasons, which concerns the Court. For

example, Plaintiff directed the Marshals to serve “D. Sawtell, registered nurse,” and “M.

Zendejas, correctional officer” but a notation on the return of service indicates the litigation

coordinator notified the Marshals that service was not accepted because the Defendants’

Case 3:06-cv-01979-MMA-AJB Document 48 Filed 02/22/08 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

27

28

- 2 - 06cv1979

initials were incorrect. Although a summons was issued as to Defendant Kilpa, no return of

service was filed. These possible defects, however, were cured by permitting Plaintiff a

second opportunity to serve these four Defendants. 

On the second attempt, Plaintiff merely requested the papers be served on the District

Attorney. The summonses directed to these Defendants were returned unexecuted on June

22, 2007 with a note from the Deputy District Attorney assigned to the case, explaining she

had not been asked to represent any of these four Defendants and could not accept service

on their behalf. In its order of January 30, 2008, the Court also noted that since that time,

Plaintiff has made no efforts to serve these Defendants. 

In response to the Order to Show Cause, Plaintiff argues these Defendants should

not be dismissed because doing so would give them a sense of being “above the law.”

Plaintiff also argues he was confused about how to serve these Defendants and was not

able to obtain these four Defendants’ addresses, which he believes shows good cause for

failure to serve. Plaintiff now seeks to compel the California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation to disclose these four Defendants’ addresses so he can serve them.

Plaintiff’s ignorance of or confusion about service requirements does not constitute

“good cause” for failure to serve. Townsel v. Contra Costa County, 820 F.2d 319, 320 (9th

Cir. 1987). This is true even though he is not represented by counsel, because “[p]ro se

litigants must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.” King v. Atiyeh,

814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). Plaintiff now seeks discovery to learn where these four

Defendants can be served, but there is no reason he could not have sought discovery in

June, 2007, when he first learned service had not been effected. Because Plaintiff knew

service had not been effected on these four Defendants, it was his responsibility to take

steps to remedy this.

While . . . incarcerated plaintiffs proceeding in forma pauperis may rely on

service by the U.S. Marshals, a plaintiff may not remain silent and do nothing

to effectuate such service. At a minimum, a plaintiff should . . . attempt to

remedy any apparent service defects of which a plaintiff has knowledge.

Rochon v. Dawson, 828 F.2d 1107, 1110 (5th Cir. 1987).

Case 3:06-cv-01979-MMA-AJB Document 48 Filed 02/22/08 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

27

28

- 3 - 06cv1979

The Court finds Plaintiff has not shown good cause for failure to serve these four

Defendants. Claims against Defendants Dovery, Sawtell, Kilpa, and Zandejas are therefore

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE because of Plaintiff’s failure to timely serve them with

process.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 22, 2008

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01979-MMA-AJB Document 48 Filed 02/22/08 Page 3 of 3