Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01632/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01632-4/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

ROBERT BENYAMINI,

Plaintiff,

v.

T. MINTON,

Defendant.

No. 2:13-cv-01632 JAM DAD P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 27, 2015, the court screened plaintiff’s first amended complaint and 

determined that service was appropriate on defendant T. Minton. (ECF No. 12.) Accordingly, 

plaintiff was directed to return, within thirty days, the documents necessary to effect service on 

defendant Minton. (Id.) On April 6, 2015, the court received the necessary documents from 

plaintiff. (ECF No. 13.) On April 21, 2015, the court issued an order directing the United States 

Marshal to serve defendant Minton. (ECF No. 14.)

On August 24, 2015, a form USM-285 was docketed, which notifies the court that the 

United States Marshal was unable to locate, and therefore unable to complete service on,

defendant Minton. (ECF No. 18.) That form USM-285 provides in pertinent part:

Sent to CDCR Special Investigator 8/17/15. 8/24/15 CDCR Special 

Investigator stated T. Minton separated from the CDCR. Locating 

Case 2:13-cv-01632-JAM-AC Document 22 Filed 10/02/15 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

information is not current and has shown to not work. Unable to 

locate.

(Id. at 1.) 

On September 8, 2015, the court issued an order directing plaintiff to complete and submit

a new USM-285 form containing the necessary information to serve defendant Minton. (ECF 

No. 19.) Plaintiff was therein notified that he could seek information concerning defendant 

Minton’s whereabouts “through discovery, the California Public Records Act, Calif. Gov’t. Code 

§ 6250, et seq., or other means available to plaintiff.” (Id. at 1) Plaintiff was further notified that 

“[i]f access to the required information is denied or unreasonably delayed, plaintiff may seek 

judicial intervention.” (Id.)

Now before the court are two identical motions, each entitled “Motion Seaking Court 

Intervention to Locate Defendant Minton and Seeking Explanation as to the Lengthy U.S. 

Marshalls Office Service Time and Investigation.” (sic) (ECF No. 20 at 1; ECF No. 21 at 1.) 

Plaintiff states in this motions that he is unable to locate defendant Minton and therefore “[h]e 

asks the court for judicial intervention in locating the said defendants and subpoena of all 

documents in relationship to the defendants in which provide access to locating the defendants.” 1 

(Id. at 3-4.) 

In making this request, plaintiff appears to have misunderstood the meaning of the court’s 

statement, in the September 8, 2015 order, that “[i]f access to the required information is denied 

or unreasonably delayed, plaintiff may seek judicial intervention.” (ECF No. 19 at 1.) The 

quoted statement means only that if an individual or entity fails to properly respond to a discovery 

request or a California Public Records Act request, plaintiff may move the court for an order

compelling that party’s compliance. The court has no means to assist plaintiff in locating 

 

1

In the two motions, plaintiff also criticizes the United States Marshal for alleged delays in 

attempting to locate defendant Minton. (Id. at 6-7.) The relevance of this criticism to the instant 

motions is unclear. Much of the remainder of plaintiff’s motions, which consists of statements 

such as, “Furthermore I am not Simon Elliott your Mossad or Israeli Secret Intelligent Service 

leader, (I.S.I.S.) your hero in Iraq. I am Robert Benyamini, therefore I think I should be 

exonerated of all crimes California and their most Mossad loving Gentiles have said I committed 

as chances are it was and where Simon Elliott” (id. at 8) is incomprehensible. Accordingly, the 

court has disregarded these portions of the motions.

Case 2:13-cv-01632-JAM-AC Document 22 Filed 10/02/15 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

defendant Minton beyond the issuance of such an order. In the present case, the United States 

Marshal sought information regarding defendant Minton’s whereabouts from CDCR; this 

information turned out to be “not current and [w]as shown not to work” (ECF No. 18 at 1) for 

purposes of locating defendant Minton. In making this request, the United States Marshal 

appears to have fully complied with paragraph 6a of the court’s April 21, 2015 service order, 

which directed the Marshal to “command all necessary assistance from [CDCR]” in effecting 

personal service. (ECF No. 14 at 2.) Accordingly, no further order directed to the United States 

Marshal appears warranted until plaintiff provides the information necessary to serve defendant 

Minton.

Accordingly, plaintiff will be granted a final opportunity to provide the information 

necessary to effect service on defendant Minton.

For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motions seeking court intervention in locating defendant T. Minton (ECF 

Nos. 20, 21) are denied.

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send to plaintiff one USM-285 form, along with 

an instruction sheet and a copy of the amended complaint filed April 16, 2014.

3. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete and submit the 

attached Notice of Submission of Documents to the court, together with one completed USM-285 

form for defendant T. Minton. Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation 

that this action be dismissed.

Dated: October 1, 2015

DAD:10

beny1632.locate.deny

Case 2:13-cv-01632-JAM-AC Document 22 Filed 10/02/15 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

Case 2:13-cv-01632-JAM-AC Document 22 Filed 10/02/15 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

ROBERT BENYAMINI,

Plaintiff,

v.

T. MINTON, 

Defendant.

No. 2:13-cv-1632 JAM DAD P

NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF 

DOCUMENTS

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

filed _____________________ :

____ completed summons form

____ completed USM-285 forms

____ copies of the ___________________ 

Amended Complaint

DATED: 

________________________________ 

Plaintiff

Case 2:13-cv-01632-JAM-AC Document 22 Filed 10/02/15 Page 5 of 5