Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00576/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00576-5/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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

WILBUR ATCHERLY, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

J. HANNA, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:13-cv-0576 KJM AC P 

ORDER 

Pending before the court are (1) plaintiff’s requests for service of the Second Amended 

Complaint (ECF Nos. 40 & 50), on defendants Wilson, Rivas, Garcia and Payne, (2) plaintiff’s 

request for a 60-day extension of time for conducting discovery (ECF No. 49), and 

(3) defendants’ first request for an extension of time to respond to discovery (ECF No. 51). 

Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a complaint claiming violations of his rights under the First 

and Eighth Amendments, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b), as well as the 

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101–12213 (which, broadly, 

prohibits discrimination against persons with disabilities by public entities), and the 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §§ 701–796l (which, broadly, prohibits recipients of federal 

funds from discriminating against persons with disabilities). ECF No. 1. The complaint named 

several defendants, including Rivas, Garcia and Wilson. Id., at 2. The court screened the 

complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and determined that service of the complaint was 

Case 2:13-cv-00576-KJM-AC Document 52 Filed 12/30/14 Page 1 of 5
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

appropriate for several defendants, including Rivas, Garcia and Wilson. 

Eventually, plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint, which named, among others, 

Payne, Garcia, Rivas and Wilson. ECF No. 29. All defendants other than Payne, Garcia, Rivas 

and Wilson moved to dismiss. ECF No. 31. Defendant then moved for leave to file a Second 

Amended Complaint, and requested an order for service of that complaint on Payne, Garcia, 

Rivas and Wilson. ECF Nos. 39 & 40. The undersigned recommended that the district judge 

grant in part and deny in part defendants’ motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint, and 

grant plaintiff’s motion to file a Second Amended Complaint. ECF No. 41. 

The undersigned deferred plaintiff’s request for service of the Second Amended Complaint 

on Payne, Garcia, Rivas and Wilson, until after the Findings and Recommendations were 

reviewed by the district judge. Id. The district judge adopted the Findings and 

Recommendations, and referred the motion for service back to the magistrate judge. ECF No. 42. 

All defendants other than Payne, Garcia, Rivas and Wilson (these four not having been served), 

have now answered the Second Amended Complaint. ECF No. 44. 

The court has previously screened the original complaint, and found that, for screening 

purposes, it stated claims against Garcia, Rivas and Wilson. The Second Amended Complaint 

similarly states claims against those three, and service upon them will be ordered. See ECF 

No. 45. As for defendant Payne, the Second Amended Complaint alleges that Payne 

affirmatively prevented plaintiff from using his authorized accommodations, which, as Payne 

knew, plaintiff needed to enter a bus without severe injury to himself. Payne also threatened 

plaintiff with violence for asserting his right to an accommodation. ECF No. 45 ¶¶ 74-76. As a 

direct result, plaintiff severely injured himself getting on the bus, and suffered severe pain. Id., 

¶¶ 79-82. Plaintiff’s allegations are sufficient, for screening purposes, to state claims against 

Payne. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Accordingly, the court will order service of the Second 

Amended complaint upon Payne. 

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Plaintiff’s motion for an order of service of the Second Amended Complaint (ECF 

No. 50), is GRANTED. Service of the amended complaint is appropriate for the following 

Case 2:13-cv-00576-KJM-AC Document 52 Filed 12/30/14 Page 2 of 5
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

defendants: D. Wilson, S. Garcia, A. Rivas and A. Payne. 

2. Plaintiff’s earlier motion for an order of service of the Second Amended Complaint 

(ECF No. 40), is DENIED as moot. 

3. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff four (4) USM-285 forms, one summons, an 

instruction sheet, and a copy of the Second Amended Complaint filed September 30, 2014. 

4. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the attached 

Notice of Submission of Documents and submit all of the following documents to the court at the 

same time: 

 a. The completed, signed Notice of Submission of Documents; 

 b. One completed summons; 

 c. One completed USM-285 form for each defendant listed in number 1 above; and 

 d. Five (5) copies of the endorsed Second Amended Complaint filed September 30, 

2014. 

5. Plaintiff shall not attempt to effect service of the amended complaint on defendants or 

request a waiver of service of summons from any defendant. Upon receipt of the above-described 

documents, the court will direct the United States Marshal to serve the above-named defendants 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 without payment of costs. 

6. Plaintiff’s request for an extension of 60-days to conduct discovery (ECF No. 49) is 

GRANTED, plaintiff having shown due diligence in conducting discovery thus far. The 

Scheduling and Discovery Order (ECF No. 46 at 5 ¶¶ 6 & 7) is hereby AMENDED to state that 

(1) the parties may conduct discovery until April 13, 2015, and (2) all pretrial motions, except 

discovery motions to compel discovery, shall be filed on or before July 8, 2015, and the order is 

otherwise CONFIRMED. 

 7. Defendants’ request for a twenty-one-day extension of time to respond to Plaintiff’s 

Interrogatories, Set One, and Requests for Admissions, Set One (ECF No. 51), is GRANTED. 

//// 

//// 

//// 

Case 2:13-cv-00576-KJM-AC Document 52 Filed 12/30/14 Page 3 of 5
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 

4

Defendants must serve responses by January 19, 2015. 

DATED: December 30, 2014 

 

Case 2:13-cv-00576-KJM-AC Document 52 Filed 12/30/14 Page 4 of 5
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 

5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

WILBUR ATCHERLEY, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

J. HANNA, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:13-cv-0576 KJM AC P 

NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF 

DOCUMENTS 

 Plaintiff submits the following documents in compliance with the court's order filed 

_____________________: 

 ____ completed summons form 

 ____ completed USM-285 forms 

 ____ copies of the ___________________ 

 Complaint 

DATED: __________________________ 

 PLAINTIFF 

Case 2:13-cv-00576-KJM-AC Document 52 Filed 12/30/14 Page 5 of 5