Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-01848/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-01848-13/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY R. TURNER,

Plaintiff, No. 2: 10-cv-1848 MCE KJN P

vs.

WARDEN SALINAS, et al., ORDER AND

Defendants. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel with a civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. For the following reasons, the undersigned recommends that

defendant Vertinelli be dismissed from this action.

On September 22, 2010, the court ordered the United States Marshal to serve the

complaint on defendants. On February 16, 2011, process directed to defendant Vertinelli was

returned unserved because he was not employed at the prison listed on the USM 285 form. 

Service was also ineffective because defendant Vertinelli’s name was not contained on the

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Locator (“CDCRL”) list. Accordingly,

on February 23, 2011, the court granted plaintiff sixty days to provide additional information to

serve this defendant. 

////

Case 2:10-cv-01848-MCE-KJN Document 66 Filed 07/08/11 Page 1 of 3
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

2

On April 27, 2011, plaintiff submitted the forms necessary to serve defendant

Vertinelli. On May 12, 2011, the court ordered the United States Marshal to serve this

defendant. On May 25, 2011, process directed to defendant Vertinelli was again returned

unserved. Service was again ineffective because defendant Vertinelli was not employed at the

prison listed on the USM 285 form and his name was not contained on the CDCRL list.

The address provided by plaintiff for defendant Vertinelli on April 27, 2011 is the

same address that plaintiff originally provided. Under these circumstances, it appeared that

service of defendant Vertinelli could not be effected. Accordingly, on June 9, 2011, plaintiff was

ordered to show cause within twenty-one days why defendant Vertinelli should not be dismissed. 

Plaintiff did not respond to the show cause order. For the reasons discussed above, the

undersigned recommends that defendant Vertinelli be dismissed.

On June 3, 2011, the court received from plaintiff a motion to compel defendants

to produce the “true” identity of defendant Vertinelli. In the motion to compel, plaintiff also

seeks a subpoena directing the warden and director of the California Department of Corrections

and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) to produce records concerning the sergeants who worked at DVI

on May 5, 2010. It is not entirely clear when, pursuant to the mailbox rule, plaintiff filed this

motion. However, plaintiff signed his motion on May 27, 2011. 

On June 8, 2011, defendants filed an opposition to plaintiff’s motion to compel. 

Defendants argue that the motion to compel is untimely because, pursuant to the January 21,

2011 scheduling order, discovery closed on May 13, 2011.

Plaintiff’s motion to compel is denied because it is untimely. In making this

finding, the undersigned observes that process directed to defendant Vertinelli was returned

unserved in February 2011. As discussed above, the USM-285 form returned by the United

States Marshal stated that defendant Vertinelli was not employed at the prison listed by plaintiff

on the form and that “per CDCRL, not listed.” Rather than engaging in timely discovery to

locate defendant Vertinelli or identify the “true” identify of this defendant, on April 27, 2011,

Case 2:10-cv-01848-MCE-KJN Document 66 Filed 07/08/11 Page 2 of 3
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

3

plaintiff instead provided the same ineffective address for service of defendant Vertinelli as he

originally provided. Because plaintiff had adequate opportunity to conduct timely discovery

regarding the location and/or “true” identify of defendant Vertinelli, the motion to compel is

denied as untimely.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion to compel (Dkt.

No. 63) is denied; and 

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that defendant Vertinelli be dismissed. 

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twentyone days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any response to the

objections shall be filed and served within fourteen days after service of the objections. The

parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to

appeal the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 

DATED: July 7, 2011

_____________________________________

KENDALL J. NEWMAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

tur1848.57

Case 2:10-cv-01848-MCE-KJN Document 66 Filed 07/08/11 Page 3 of 3