Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01324/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-01324-10/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTOINE L. ARDDS,

Plaintiff,

v.

HICKS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:18-cv-01324-NONE-BAM (PC)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR AN 

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE WAIVERS 

OF SERVICE

(ECF No. 46)

Waivers of Service of Process Due: 

December 9, 2020

Plaintiff Antoine L. Ardds (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on 

Plaintiff’s second amended complaint against: (1) Defendants Hicks, Alcantar, McIntyre, Baylon, 

and Sanchez for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment arising out of the alleged 

November 9, 2017 assault; (2) Defendants Hicks, Amaya, Alcantar, McIntyre, Baylon, Sanchez, 

and Severens for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment arising out of their alleged 

attempt to improperly assign Plaintiff outside of his designated EOP mental health level of care 

unit and place him in an occupied cell after a direction that he receive a single cell placement; and 

(3) Defendants Hicks, Amaya, Alcantar, McIntyre, Baylon, and Sanchez for failure to protect 

Plaintiff from an alleged assault by Inmate Hall on November 9, 2017, in violation of the Eighth 

Amendment.

///

Case 1:18-cv-01324-JLT-BAM Document 47 Filed 11/10/20 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

On September 3, 2020, the Court ordered electronic service on Defendants Hicks, 

Alcantar, McIntyre, Baylon, Sanchez, Amaya, and Severens, and directed the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) to file a Notice of E-Service Waiver 

advising the Court which defendant(s) would be waiving service of process without the need for 

personal service. (ECF No. 40.) That order also required the California Office of the Attorney 

General (“OAG”) to file, within 30 days from the filing of the Notice of E-Service Waiver, a 

separate waiver of service of process for any defendant waiving service under Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 4(d)(1). (Id.) CDCR returned the Notice of E-Service Waiver on October 9, 

2020, and therefore waivers of service of process from the AGO were due on or before November 

9, 2020.

On November 9, 2020, counsel from the OAG, by special appearance, filed a request for 

an extension of time for Defendants to file waivers of service of process. (ECF No. 46.) The

OAG states that an extension is necessary so that the OAG can determine whether it can and will 

represent all the Defendants. Accordingly, the OAG requests a thirty-day extension of time for 

Defendants to file waivers of service of process. (Id.)

Having considered the request, the Court finds that there is good cause to grant an 

extension of time for Defendants to file their waivers of service of process. Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b). 

Accordingly, the motion for an extension of time, (ECF No. 46), is HEREBY GRANTED. 

Defendants shall file waivers of service of process on or before December 9, 2020.

1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 10, 2020 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1 The Court notes that on October 20, 2020, this matter was set for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge 

Jeremy D. Peterson on January 27, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. (ECF No. 44.) The settlement conference will also include 

discussions of Ardds v. Hicks, Case No. 1:19-cv-01738-SAB and Ardds v. Bobadilla, Case No. 1:20-cv-00887-

DAD-SAB. The instant extension of time does not change the date of that settlement conference.

Case 1:18-cv-01324-JLT-BAM Document 47 Filed 11/10/20 Page 2 of 2