Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00057/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00057-5/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

1On October 18, 2007 nunc pro tunc October 15, 2007,

Plaintiff filed a Motion Requesting the Court to Direct Service

on Unserved Defendants. See Doc. No. 30. The motion was

accepted for filing via Discrepancy Order by the chambers of the

Honorable William Q. Hayes.

07cv0057

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGORY LYNN NORWOOD,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEANNE WOODFORD, et al.,

Defendants. 

 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 07-CV-0057-WQH (JMA)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION THAT THE COURT ORDER

SERVICE UPON DEFENDANTS

[Doc. Nos. 30, 39]

On December 20, 2007 nunc pro tunc December 13, 2007,

Plaintiff filed a “Second Motion Requesting that the Court Order

Service Upon Defendants.”1 Doc. No. 39. Plaintiff, proceeding

pro se and in forma pauperis, requests that the Court order

service upon Defendants Bourland and Torres, who have apparently

retired and separated from state service, respectively, via the

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. 

Case 3:07-cv-00057-WQH-JMA Document 40 Filed 12/26/07 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

2Rule 4(m) provides that “[i]f service of the summons and

complaint is not made upon a defendant within 120 days after the

filing of the complaint, the court, upon motion or on its own

initiative after notice to the plaintiff, shall dismiss the

action without prejudice as to that defendant or direct that

service be effected within a specified time; provided that if the

plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court shall

extend the time for service for an appropriate period.” Fed. R.

Civ. P. 4(m).

2 07cv0057

“[A]n incarcerated pro se plaintiff proceeding in forma

pauperis is entitled to rely on the U.S. Marshal for service of

the summons and complaint, and, having provided the necessary

information to help effectuate service, plaintiff should not be

penalized by having his or her action dismissed for failure to

effectuate service.” Puett v. Blandford, 912 F.2d 270, 275 (9th

Cir. 1990). So long as the prisoner has furnished the

information necessary to identify the defendant, the marshal’s

failure to effect service of process is automatically good cause

within the meaning of Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). See Walker v.

Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994), overruled on other

grounds by Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 483-85 (1995).2 Here,

Plaintiff has sufficiently identified Defendant Bourland as the

former Chief Deputy Warden of Calipatria State Prison who

responded to his Inmate/Parolee Appeal Form 602 complaints, and

Defendant Torres as a Correctional Sergeant at Calipatria. Thus,

as long as the privacy of Defendants’ forwarding addresses can be

preserved, Plaintiff is entitled to rely on the U.S. Marshal to

effect service upon them on his behalf. See Puett, 912 F.2d at

275.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s motion and ORDERS

the Deputy Attorney General assigned to this case to provide the

Case 3:07-cv-00057-WQH-JMA Document 40 Filed 12/26/07 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

3 07cv0057

forwarding addresses for Defendants Bourland and Torres to the

U.S. Marshal in a confidential memorandum indicating that the

summons and complaint is to be delivered to the specified address

for each defendant. The Deputy Attorney General shall provide

the U.S. Marshal with any such information on or before January

11, 2008. 

Within forty-five (45) days of receipt of any available

address from the Deputy Attorney General, the Court ORDERS the

U.S. Marshal to serve a copy of Plaintiff’s First Amended

Complaint and summons upon Defendants Bourland and Torres. All

costs of service shall be advanced by the United States pursuant

to the Court’s May 1, 2007 Order directing service pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915(d) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2) [Doc. No. 13]. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court provide a

copy of: (1) the Court’s May 13, 2007 Service Order [Doc. No.

13]; (2) this Order; (3) the First Amended Complaint, summons and

a blank U.S. Marshal Form 285 to the Deputy Attorney General for

purposes of re-attempting service as to Defendants Bourland and

Torres. However, both the Deputy Attorney General and the Office

of the U.S. Marshal are ORDERED to keep the addresses provided

for Bourland and Torres strictly confidential. Thus, the

addresses shall not appear on any U.S. Marshal Form 285, shall

not be provided to Plaintiff, and shall not be made part of the

Court’s record. 

//

//

//

//

Case 3:07-cv-00057-WQH-JMA Document 40 Filed 12/26/07 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

4 07cv0057

Finally, if the Deputy Attorney General is not able to

locate an address for either Defendant Bourland or Torres, he or

she shall file a Declaration with the Court to that effect by no

later than January 11, 2008.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: December 26, 2007

Jan M. Adler

U.S. Magistrate Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00057-WQH-JMA Document 40 Filed 12/26/07 Page 4 of 4