Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02824/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-02824-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRIAN SCOTT THOMPSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA; KAMALA

D. HARRIS,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 3:12-cv-2824-GPC-WVG

ORDER RE SERVICE OF

PROCESS

The Court issues this order sua sponte to address the current status of Plaintiff’s

case as set forth below.

On November 26, 2012, Brian Scott Thompson (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se,

filed a complaint alleging he was wrongfully arrested in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983

and the California Constitution. More specifically, Plaintiff alleges that, in 1993, he

pled guilty to charges in the State of Texas for “indecency with a child.” Plaintiff

alleges that, pursuant to his plea agreement with the State of Texas, he was required to

register as a sex offender only until the discharge of his probation or parole. Plaintiff

alleges his parole was discharged and that he thereafter moved to California. Plaintiff

alleges that, once in California, he was twice arrested for failure to register as a sex

offender pursuant toCalifornia PenalCode section 290. Plaintiff alleges the California

3:12-cv-2824-GPC-WVG

Case 3:12-cv-02824-GPC-WVG Document 13 Filed 04/17/13 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

charges were dropped each time and that the California Department of Justice

thereafter sent Plaintiff a letter stating he is “no longer required to register as a sex

offender in the State of California for [his] 1993 conviction in the state of Texas for

Indecency with a Child.” Plaintiff thereafter filed this suit against the State of

California and Kamala D. Harris (“Defendants”) to recover compensatory and punitive

damages stemming from his allegedly wrongful arrests.

On December 26, 2012, Plaintiff filed two proofs of service indicating that he

“mailed summons on 12-26-12 to the California Attorney Generals office Express

Mail.” (ECF Nos. 2, 3.) 

On March 1, 2013, Plaintiff filed a request for entry of default. (ECF No. 8.) 

The Clerk of Court did not enter default, indicating thatservice on Defendants was not

proper under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. (Id.)

On March 22, 2013, Plaintiff filed an additional proof of service indicating that

he “mailed the summons pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 4(j)(2)(B)

& California Code of Civ. Proc. 415.30 sub(A).” (ECF No. 12.)

It has come to the Court’s attention that Plaintiff has repeatedly called court

personnel regarding the Clerk of Court’s refusal to enter default. It has been reported

that, despite the attempts of court personnel to explain why default was not entered,

Plaintiff has been verbally hostile in his calls to court personnel, including yelling at

court personnel and hanging up calls before court personnel could finish explaining

why default was not entered.

First, Plaintiff is warned that the Court will not tolerate verbally hostile calls to

any of its personnel. Should Plaintiff make any further verbally hostile calls, the Court

will prohibit Plaintiff from calling court personnel and will require all future

communications from Plaintiff to be in writing. See CivLR 83.2, 83.4.a.1. While the

Court recognizes Plaintiff is not an attorney, the Court nonetheless expects Plaintiff to

“[b]e courteous and civil in all communications, oral and written, and in all

proceedings [to] conduct []himself with dignity and respect.” See CivLR 83.4.a.1.

2 3:12-cv-2824-GPC-WVG

Case 3:12-cv-02824-GPC-WVG Document 13 Filed 04/17/13 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

Second, Plaintiff is reminded that even parties who appear without an attorney

are still bound by the Local Rules and the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See

CivLR 83.11.

Third, it is true that a document filed by an unrepresented party should be

“liberally construed.” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). Still, “[a] district

court lacks the power to act as a party’s lawyer,” Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212,

1219 (9th Cir. 2007). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has stated that:

The hazards which beset a layman when he seeks to represent himself are

obvious. He who proceeds pro se with full knowledge and understanding

of the risks does so with no greater rights than a litigant represented by a

lawyer, and the trial court is under no obligation to become an “advocate”

for or to assist and guide the pro se layman through the trial thicket.

Jacobsen v. Filler, 790 F.2d 1362, 1365 n.5 (9th Cir. 1986); see also Gordon v. Barnett,

2007 WL 43583154, at *3 (W.D. Wash. Dec. 7, 2007) (stating that if the pro se

plaintiff had asked the court for assistance, the court “could not have done more than

direct plaintiff to the applicable rules of civil procedure”). With that in mind, the Court

will not advise Plaintiff as to how to properly serve Defendants. 

The Court will note, however, that the time to properly serve Defendants has

passed. Rule 4(m) provides: “If a defendant is not served within 120 days after the

complaint is filed, the court–on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff–must

dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be

made within a specified time.” Plaintiff filed his complaint on November 26, 2012. 

Thus, 120 days elapsed on March 26, 2013, and Plaintiff still has not successfully

served Defendants. Plaintiff, however, has represented to court personnel that he plans

to seek the assistance of the U.S. Marshal Service in serving Defendants. Thus, based

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

3 3:12-cv-2824-GPC-WVG

Case 3:12-cv-02824-GPC-WVG Document 13 Filed 04/17/13 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

on that representation, the Court will extend the time for Plaintiff to serve Defendants. 

Plaintiff shall have until May 17, 2013, to properly serve Defendants.

SO ORDERED.

DATED: April 17, 2013

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

4 3:12-cv-2824-GPC-WVG

Case 3:12-cv-02824-GPC-WVG Document 13 Filed 04/17/13 Page 4 of 4