Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00658/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00658-5/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

The Complaint was filed in the District Court for the 1

Northern District of California and was transferred to this court

by Order issued on May 23, 2006. Although Plaintiff initially was

allowed to proceed in forma pauperis, his in forma pauperis status

was revoked by Order filed on September 26, 2006 (Doc. 10).

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PATRICK RICHARD O’DELL, )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

)

INYO COUNTY SHERIFF'S )

DEPARTMENT, et al., )

)

)

Defendant. )

)

)

No. CV-F-06-658 OWW/SMS

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS'

MOTIONS TO QUASH SERVICE AND

DISMISS ACTION (Docs. 15,

16, 24 & 25), DISMISSING

ACTION WITH LEAVE TO AMEND,

DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT

WITHIN 20 DAYS OF SERVICE OF

THIS ORDER, TO EFFECT

SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND

COMPLAINT WITHIN 20 DAYS OF

FILING THE SECOND AMENDED

COMPLAINT, AND TO FILE

RETURNS OF SERVICE WITHIN

TEN (10) DAYS THEREAFTER

On May 17, 2006, Patrick Richard O’Dell, proceeding in pro

per, filed a Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Named as 1

defendants were the Inyo County Sheriff’s Department, Inyo County

Case 1:06-cv-00658-OWW -SMS Document 28 Filed 12/26/06 Page 1 of 15
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

Sheriff’s Department Child Support Division, District Attorney

Phil McDowell (retired), and Assistant District Attorney

Christensen. By Order filed on June 8, 2006, the United States

Magistrate Judge dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend. On

June 15, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Declaration (Doc. 7), wherein he 

avers:

Under the 2 Amendment of the Bill of nd

Rights. My Firearms were unlawfully

confuscated [sic] by the Inyo County Sheriffs

[sic] Department, by Court Order of Superior

Court Judge Dean Stout. I was refused A

[sic] Grand jury [sic] investigation by Judge

Stout. I was refused a Trial by Assistant

District Attorney Cristensen [sic]. To

Determine my innocents [sic] or Guilt. I

have not been found guilty of any Felonys or

mistorminers [sic]. My Private Property has

been sized [sic] with out due process of law

or compensation.

This took place 7-30-02

Superior Court of California.

County of Inyo - Case Number SICVDV-02-

003125S [sic]

By Order filed on August 7, 2006, the Magistrate Judge deemed

Plaintiff’s Declaration to be a First Amended Complaint “against

the only three persons or entities named in it, namely the Inyo

County Sheriff’s Department, Superior Court Judge Dean Stout, and

Assistant District Attorney Chrisentsen.” (Doc. 8). 

By Order filed on October 12, 2006, Plaintiff was ordered to

serve the summons and First Amended Complaint on all defendants

in compliance with Rule 4, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

within 20 days of service of the Order and to file the returns of

service within 10 days thereafter "or this matter will be

Case 1:06-cv-00658-OWW -SMS Document 28 Filed 12/26/06 Page 2 of 15
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

dismissed for failure to prosecute." 

On October 17, 2006, a Summons in a Civil Case was issued by

the Clerk's Office to Plaintiff. The Summons, which is a single

document, is issued to: "Inyo County Sheriff's Department, Inyo

County Sheriff's Department Child Support Services, Phil

McDowell, Linda Ansiman, - Christensen". 

On October 27, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Return of Service

(Doc. 14). The Return of Service states that the date of service

was "Date of Delivery 10-23-06", and that the name of server was

"Certified Mail". The Return of Service further states:

G Served personally upon the defendant. 

Place where served: _________

O Left copies thereof at the defendant's

 dwelling house or usual place of bode with 

 a person of suitable age and discretion then 

residing therein.

O Name of person with home summons and 

complaint were left: B. Humphrey

Q Returned unexecuted: ____________

Q Other (specify): Copy of Certified Mail

 Receipt Sent.

The Return of Service is executed by Plaintiff as the server of

process. Attached to the Return of Service is a copy of a

certified mail receipt, which states that the certified mail was

addressed to:

Sheriff:

Dan Lucas

P.O. Box - S

Independence CA 

93526

The certified mail receipt is signed by “BHumphrey” as “agent”.

Case 1:06-cv-00658-OWW -SMS Document 28 Filed 12/26/06 Page 3 of 15
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

4

The Inyo County Sheriff’s Department moves for dismissal of

this action pursuant to Rule 12(b)(5) and (6). Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure. Phil McDowell, Linda Anisman, and the Inyo

County Child Support Department also move for dismissal under

Rule 12(b)(5) and (6).

No written opposition to the motions was filed by Plaintiff. 

Plaintiff personally appeared at the hearing and was allowed to

present oral argument in opposition to the motions. 

A. Plaintiff Required to Comply Rules of Procedure and

Court Orders.

Even though Plaintiff is proceeding in pro per, he is

required to familiarize himself and comply with the Federal Rules

of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules of Practice for the Eastern

District of California, and any court orders. Rule 83-183(a),

Local Rules of Practice, provides in pertinent part:

Any individual representing himself ...

without an attorney is bound by the Federal

Rules of Civil ... Procedure and by these

Local Rules. All obligations placed on

‘counsel’ by these Local Rules apply to

individuals appearing in propria persona. 

Failure to comply therewith may be ground for

dismissal ... or any other sanction

appropriate under these rules.

For example, if a defense motion is noticed for hearing,

Plaintiff is required to timely comply with Rule 78-230, Local

Rules of Practice. Rule 78-230(c) provides in pertinent part:

Opposition, if any, to the granting of the

motion shall be in writing and shall be filed

with the Clerk not less than fourteen (14)

days preceding the noticed (or continued)

hearing date. Opposition shall be [served]

Case 1:06-cv-00658-OWW -SMS Document 28 Filed 12/26/06 Page 4 of 15
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

5

on opposing counsel not less than fourteen

(14) days preceding the hearing date

(personal service) or mailed or electronic

served not less than seventeen (17) days

preceding the hearing date. A responding

party who has no opposition to the granting

of the motion shall serve and file a

statement to that effect, specifically

designating the motion in question. No party

will be entitled to be heard in opposition to

a motion at oral argument if opposition to

the motion has not been timely served by that

party. 

B. Dismissal Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(5).

Rule 12(b)(5) provides for dismissal of an action for

“insufficiency of service of process”. The burden is on the

plaintiff to demonstrate that service of process was sufficient. 

Mateo v. M/S KISO, 805 F.Supp. 792, 794 (N.D.Cal.1992); Well v.

City of Portland, 102 F.R.D. 796, 799 (D.Or.1984). “Normally the

process server’s return will provide a prima facie case as to the

facts of service, but if the defendant introduces uncontroverted

affidavits in support of a motion to quash service, the content

of those affidavits will be deemed admitted for purposes of the

motion. Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil

3 § 1353, pp. 343-344. rd

Dan Lucas, Inyo County Sheriff, avers in pertinent part:

2. On October 23, 2006, I received an

unopened envelope delivered by the U.S.

Postal Service addressed to Sheriff Dan

Lucas, P.O. Box S, Independence, California. 

I am informed and believe that this envelope

was received by the Inyo County Sheriff’s

Department on or about October 20, 2006, and

was forwarded to me by the Sheriff’s

Administrative personnel.

3. I opened the envelope and it contained a

Case 1:06-cv-00658-OWW -SMS Document 28 Filed 12/26/06 Page 5 of 15
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

6

copy of the Summons in this case ... There

was no complaint contained in the envelope.

4. Plaintiff Patrick O’Dell has not

personally served me as the head of the Inyo

County Sheriff’s Department, with a copy of

the Summons and Complaint in this case at any

time.

5. Plaintiff Patrick O’Dell has not served

me by mail, as the head of the Inyo County

Sheriff’s Department with a copy of the

Summons and Complaint in this case as any

time. Plaintiff Patrick O’Dell has not

delivered a copy of the Summons and Complaint

in this case at any time to my place of

business or my home. 

Kathy Sterrett, Legal Secretary with the Inyo County

District Attorney’s Office, avers that she was present in the

Bishop Office of the Inyo County District Attorney’s Office on

October 20, 2006 and that she knows Plaintiff from previous

contacts with him. Ms. Sterrett further avers:

4. On October 20, 2006, Plaintiff Patrick

O’Dell entered the Bishop office of the Inyo

County District Attorney’s Office and asked

for ‘Cristenen’. I informed Mr. O’Dell that

David Christensen was no longer with our

office or in the State of California. Mr.

O’Dell then asked for Phil McDowell. I

informed him that he was still employed with

the District Attorney’s Office. Mr. O’Dell

crossed out David Cristesen’s name on the

envelope and put Phil McDowell’s name on it.

Mr. O’Dell stated that there was a Federal

Case pending wherein he was suing the County

of Inyo and wanted to make sure that Phil

McDowell was given this envelope. At the

time this took place, Phil McDowell was not

in the Bishop Office of the Inyo County

District Attorney’s Law Office. Mr. O’Dell 

left nothing but the envelope in the Bishop

District Attorney’s Office.

5. I forwarded the envelope to Phil McDowell

without opening it.

Case 1:06-cv-00658-OWW -SMS Document 28 Filed 12/26/06 Page 6 of 15
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

7

Deputy District Attorney Phil McDowell avers in pertinent part:

4. On October 23, 2006, I received an

envelope with my name on the outside, which I

am informed and believe was left by Plaintiff

Patrick O’Dell at the Bishop Office of the

Inyo County District Attorney on October 20,

2006. I opened the envelope and it contained

the Summons in this case ... There was no

complaint in the envelope.

5. I am familiar as an Attorney at Law with

the provisions for service of a summons and

complaint as set forth in Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 4 and the California Rule of

Civil Procedure.

6. Plaintiff Patrick O’Dell has not served

me personally with the summons and complaint

in this matter at any time.

7. Plaintiff has not served me with a

summons and complaint by any method

authorized by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

4 or by the California Code of Civil

Procedure.

Laura Sigler, Legal Clerk for the Inyo County Child Support

Department, avers that she was present in the Bishop Office of

the Inyo County Child Support Department on October 20, 2006 and

that she knows Plaintiff from previous contacts with him. Ms.

Sigler further avers:

4. On October 20, 2006, Plaintiff Patrick

O’Dell entered the Bishop office of the Inyo

County Child Support Department and left an

envelope addressed to Linda Anisman. Except

for the envelope, Mr. Odell [sic] left

nothing else. At the time this took place,

Linda Anisman, Director of the Inyo County

Child Support Department was not in the

Bishop Office.

5. I forwarded the envelope to Linda Anisman

without opening it.

Linda Anisman, Director of the Inyo County Child Support

Case 1:06-cv-00658-OWW -SMS Document 28 Filed 12/26/06 Page 7 of 15
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

8

Department, avers in her Declaration in pertinent part:

2. The Inyo County Child Support Department

is an independent department within the

County of Inyo and is not part of the Inyo

County Sheriff’s Department. The Inyo County

Child Support Services Department has its

office in Bishop, California. I was not in

the Inyo County Child Support Services Office

on October 20, 2006.

3. On October 23, 2006, I received an

envelope addressed to me which I was informed

and believe was left by Patrick O’Dell at the

Inyo County Child Support Services office on

October 20, 2006. I opened the envelope and

it contained the Summons in this case ...

There was no complaint in the envelope.

4. I am familiar as an Attorney at Law with

the provisions for service of a summons and

complaint as set forth in Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 4 and the California Rule of

Civil Procedure.

5. Plaintiff Patrick O’Dell has never served

me personally, either as an individual or as

the Director of the Inyo County Child Support

Department, with the Summons and Complaint in

this case at any time.

6. Plaintiff Patrick O’Dell has not served

me, as an individual or as the Director of

the Inyo County Child Support Services

Department with the Summons and Complaint by

any method authorized by Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 4 or by the California Code

of Civil Procedure.

Defendants move to quash service and dismiss this action

because of Plaintiff’s failure to comply with Rule 4(c), Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure. Defendants note that Plaintiff failed

to serve the First Amended Complaint with the Summons as required

by Rule 4(c)(1) and that purported service was effected by

Plaintiff in contravention of Rule 4(c)(2). Defendants further

Case 1:06-cv-00658-OWW -SMS Document 28 Filed 12/26/06 Page 8 of 15
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

9

move to quash service and dismiss this action because service of

the summons and First Amended Complaint was not effected as

required by Rule 4 and California law.

Rule 4(c) provides in pertinent part:

(1) A summons shall be served together with a

copy of the complaint. The plaintiff is

responsible for service of a summons and

complaint within the time allowed under

subdivision (m) and shall furnish the person

effecting service with the necessary copies

of the summons and complaint.

(2) Service may be effected by any person who

is not a party and who is at least 18 years

of age. ....

Rule 4(e) allows service of process upon individuals:

(1) pursuant to the law of the state in which

the district court is located, or in which

service is effected, for the service of a

summons upon the defendant in an action

brought in the courts of general jurisdiction

of the State; or

(2) delivering a copy of the summons and of

the complaint to the individual personally or

by leaving copies thereof at the individual’s

dwelling house or usual place of abode with

some person of suitable age and discretion

then residing therein or by delivering a copy

of the summons and complaint to an agent

authorized by appointment or law to receive

service of process. 

California Code of Civil Procedure § 410.10 provides that a

summons may be served by any person who is at least 18 years of

age and not a party to the action. California law provides that 

a summons may be served by personal delivery of the summons and

complaint to the person to be served, California Code of Civil

Procedure § 415.10, or by leaving a copy of the summons and

Case 1:06-cv-00658-OWW -SMS Document 28 Filed 12/26/06 Page 9 of 15
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

10

complaint during office hours at his or her office, and by

thereafter mailing a copy of the summons and complaint to be

served at the place where a copy of the summons and complaint was

left, California Code of Civil Procedure § 415.20(a), or by

leaving a copy at the person’s dwelling house or usual place of

abode as required by California Code of Civil Procedure § 415.20. 

A summons and complaint may be served by mail but service must

comply with the notice and acknowledgment requirements set forth

in California Code of Civil Procedure § 415.30. 

Rule 4(j)(2), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, provides

that service a municipal corporation or other governmental entity

“shall be effected by delivering a copy of the summons and of the

complaint to its chief executive officer or by serving the

summons and complaint in the manner prescribed by the law of that

state for the service of summons or other like process upon any

such defendant.” California Code of Civil Procedure § 416.50(a)

provides that “a summons may be served on a public entity by

delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to the

clerk, secretary, president, presiding officer, or other head of

its governing body.” 

Plaintiff has not complied with any of these requirements

for effecting service of process. Pursuant to the October 12,

2006 Order, Plaintiff was to serve the summons and First Amended

Complaint on all defendants in compliance with Rule 4, Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, within 20 days of service of the Order

and to file the returns of service within 10 days thereafter "or

Case 1:06-cv-00658-OWW -SMS Document 28 Filed 12/26/06 Page 10 of 15
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

11

this matter will be dismissed for failure to prosecute."

Therefore, Defendants’ motions to quash service are GRANTED.

However, because Plaintiff will be ordered to file a Second

Amended Complaint, see discussion infra, Plaintiff will be

allowed one more opportunity to properly effect service of

summons and the Second Amended Complaint on Defendants. Failure

to timely and properly effect service of process will result in

the dismissal of this action.

B. Failure to State a Claim.

Phil McDowell, Linda Anisman, and the Inyo County Child

Support Department also move for dismissal of this action on the

grounds that they are not named as defendants in the First

Amended Complaint, that there are no charging allegations in the

First Amended Complaint against them, and no relief against them

is sought in the First Amended Complaint. 

Dismissal on these grounds is GRANTED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.

The Magistrate Judge advised Plaintiff in the Order filed on

June 8, 2006 of the legal requirements for stating a claim upon

which relief can be granted. These standards are reiterated in

this Order.

Rule 8(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, provides in

pertinent part:

A pleading which sets forth a claim for

relief ... shall contain (1) a short and

plain statement of the grounds upon which the

court’s jurisdiction depends, unless the

court already has jurisdiction and the claim

needs no new grounds of jurisdiction to

support it, (2) a short and plain statement

Case 1:06-cv-00658-OWW -SMS Document 28 Filed 12/26/06 Page 11 of 15
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

12

of the claim showing that the pleader is

entitled to relief, and (3) a demand for

judgment for the relief the pleader seeks. 

Relief in the alternative or of several

different types may be demanded. 

Under Rule 8(a)(2), a pleading must give fair notice to each

named defendant and state the elements of the claim plainly and

succinctly. Jones v. Community Redevelopment Agency, 733 F.2d

646, 649 (9 Cir. 1984). A complaint that is verbose, th

conclusory and confusing does not comply with Rule 8(a)(2). 

Nevijel v. North Coast Life Ins. Co., 651 F.2d 671, 674 (9 Cir. th

1981). 

Here, because the First Amended Complaint does not name Phil

McDowell, Linda Anisman, or the Inyo County Child Support

Department as defendants and does not set forth any allegations

against any of them, the First Amended Complaint does not state a

claim against them upon which relief may be granted. If

Plaintiff intends to proceed against these individuals or this

entity, Plaintiff must file a Second Amended Complaint in

compliance with this Order. 

D. Statute of Limitations.

All moving parties move for dismissal of the First Amended

Complaint as barred by the statute of limitations pursuant to

Rule 12(b)(6).

A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) tests the

sufficiency of the complaint. Novarro v. Black, 250 F.3d 729,

732 (9 Cir.2001). Dismissal of a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) is th

appropriate only where “it appears beyond doubt that the

Case 1:06-cv-00658-OWW -SMS Document 28 Filed 12/26/06 Page 12 of 15
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

13

plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which

would entitle him to relief.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-

46 (1957). The court must construe a pro se plaintiff’s

pleadings liberally in determining whether a claim has been

stated. Ortez v. Washington County, State of Or., 88 F.3d 804,

807 (9 Cir. 1996); Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1137 (9 th th

Cir. 1987). Dismissal is warranted under Rule 12(b)(6) where the

complaint lacks a cognizable legal theory or where the complaint

presents a cognizable legal theory yet fails to plead essential

facts under that theory. Robertson v. Dean Witter Reynolds,

Inc., 749 F.2d 530, 534 (9 Cir.1984). In reviewing a motion to th

dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the court must assume the truth of

all factual allegations and must construe all inferences from

them in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. 

Thompson v. Davis, 295 F.3d 890, 895 (9 Cir.2002). However, th

legal conclusions need not be taken as true merely because they

are cast in the form of factual allegations. Ileto v. Glock,

Inc., 349 F.3d 1191, 1200 (9 Cir.2003). Immunities and other th

affirmative defenses may be upheld on a motion to dismiss only

when they are established on the face of the complaint. See

Morley v. Walker, 175 F.3d 756, 759 (9 Cir.1999); Jablon v. th

Dean Witter & Co., 614 F.2d 677, 682 (9 Cir. 1980). th

This action was commenced on May 17, 2006. The First

Amended Complaint alleges that Plaintiff’s property was seized

without due process or compensation on July 30, 2002. 

Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 335.1,

Case 1:06-cv-00658-OWW -SMS Document 28 Filed 12/26/06 Page 13 of 15
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

Plaintiff is again advised that the Court cannot refer to a 2

prior pleading in order to make the Second Amended Complaint

complete. Rule 15-220, Local Rules of Practice, requires that an

amended complaint be complete in itself without reference to any

14

Plaintiff’s claim for relief under Section 1983 is subject to a

two-year statute of limitations.

Although state law prescribes the statute of limitations

applicable to claims under Section 1983, federal law governs time

of accrual. Gibson v. United States, 781 f.2d 1334, 1340 (9th

Cir.1986). A statute of limitations under Section 1983 begins to

run when the cause of action accrues, which is when the plaintiff

knows or has reason to know of the injury that is the basis of

his or her action. RK Ventures, Inc. v. City of Seattle, 307

F.3d 1045, 1058 (9 Cir.2002), citing Cabrera v. City of th

Huntington Park, 159 F.3d 374, 379 (9 Cir.1998). th

The First Amended Complaint itself establishes that any

claims for relief against the named defendants under Section 1983 

are time-barred because this action was commenced almost four

years after Plaintiff knew of the alleged injury. Therefore,

unless Plaintiff can amend to allege facts from which it may be

inferred that the claims for relief under Section 1983 are not

time-barred or can allege facts from which it may be inferred

that Plaintiff is entitled to tolling of the two-year statute of

limitations, Plaintiff will not be entitled to relief against any

defendant named in the action. Because it cannot be determined

at this juncture whether Plaintiff can so amend, Plaintiff is

given leave to amend. 

2

Case 1:06-cv-00658-OWW -SMS Document 28 Filed 12/26/06 Page 14 of 15
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

prior pleading. See Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9 Cir.1967). th

Therefore, in the Second Amended Complaint, each claim for relief

and the involvement of each defendant must be alleged as required

by Rule 8(a) and this Order.

15

ACCORDINGLY, as set forth above:

1. Defendants’ motions to quash service and dismiss this

action are GRANTED. 

2. Plaintiff shall file a Second Amended Complaint within

twenty (20) days of service of this Order.

3. Plaintiff shall effect service of summons and Second

Amended Complaint pursuant to the requirements of Rule 4, Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure, within twenty (20) days of filing the

Second Amended Complaint and shall file the returns of service

within ten (10) days thereafter.

4. Failure to comply and comply timely with this Order will

result in the dismissal of this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 26, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00658-OWW -SMS Document 28 Filed 12/26/06 Page 15 of 15