Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-05192/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-05192-8/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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TIMOTHY BUFORD,

Plaintiff,

v.

WASCO STATE PRISON, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:01-CV-5192-REC-SMS-P 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO SERVE

SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT

(Doc. 134)

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO SHOW

CAUSE FOR FAILING TO WAIVE SERVICE

(Doc. 142)

I. Order

A. Motion for Extension of Time to Serve Defendant Carbajal

Plaintiff Timothy Buford (“plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 12132 (Americans with Disabilities Act). This

action is proceeding on plaintiff’s second amended complaint, filed January 8, 2004, against

defendants Carbajal, Bindel, Huertas, Dobbs, Cheatham, Leong, and Songer (“defendants”) on

plaintiff’s ADA claim. 

On November 7, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion seeking an extension of time to serve the

summons and second amended complaint on defendant Carbajal. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). (Doc. 134.)

It is unnecessary for plaintiff to insert himself into the process surrounding service on defendant.

Plaintiff is automatically entitled to service by the Marshal and such service is ordered and monitored

by the court. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2). If the process reaches a juncture at which plaintiff’s

Case 1:01-cv-05192-SMS Document 146 Filed 04/20/06 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

involvement is necessary, plaintiff will be notified via court order and either directed to take some

action or invited to respond in some manner. In this instance, defendant Carbajal was personally

served on November 14, 2005, and filed an answer on December 5, 2005. Thus, in addition to being

unnecessary, plaintiff’s motion has been rendered moot.

B. Order to Show Cause for Failing to Waive Service

On December 13, 2005, the court ordered defendant Carbajal to show cause for failing to

waive service. (Doc. 142.) Defendant filed a response on January 12, 2006. (Doc. 145.) Based on

defendant’s response, the court will not assess against him the cost of personal service and shall

discharge the order to show cause.

C. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to serve defendant Carbajal, filed

November 7, 2005, is DENIED; and

2. The order to show cause for failing to waive service, filed December 13, 2005, is

DISCHARGED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 20, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:01-cv-05192-SMS Document 146 Filed 04/20/06 Page 2 of 2