Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01578/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01578-1/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- 06cv1578-WQH (BLM) 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LARRY CHARLES CLEVELAND,

Plaintiff,

v.

T DENNISON, et al.,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 06cv1578-WQH (BLM)

ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF

TIME FOR SERVICE OF COMPLAINT

[Doc. No. 14]

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

Plaintiff, an inmate currently incarcerated at the Salinas

Valley State Prison in Soledad, California, is proceeding pro se

with this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

On October 3, 2006, the district judge granted Plaintiff leave to

proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)

and, finding his Complaint survived the initial screening provisions

of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A, directed the United States

Marshals Service (“USMS”) to effect service pursuant to Rule 4(c)(2)

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d).

Doc. No. 6. The district judge further directed the Clerk of the

Court to issue the Summons and to provide Plaintiff with a certified

Case 3:06-cv-01578-WQH-BLM Document 15 Filed 02/22/07 Page 1 of 7
 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 Subject, of course, to California prison regulations defining

appropriate procedural safeguards that are necessary to protect institutional

security. 

-2- 06cv1578-WQH (BLM) 

copy of the Complaint and a blank USMS Form 285 for each defendant

named in the Complaint. Id.; see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); Fed. R.

Civ. P. 4(a), (c)(2). 

On December 13, 2006, Plaintiff filed a document entitled

“Notice of Motion and Motion for Order to Demand All Incoming Legal

Mail be Issued and Not Withhold Incoming Legal Mail Returned From

United States Marshals Office.” Doc. No. 10. Therein, Plaintiff

alleged that he sent the USMS two boxes containing copies of the

Complaint and a completed USMS Form 285 for each defendant. Id.

Plaintiff attached to his motion a form from the USMS dated October

24, 2006, which explained that the USMS was returning one box to

Plaintiff because it was too disorganized to be served and that the

USMS would retain the second box until Plaintiff organized and

returned the first box. Id.; Doc. No. 14, Ex. A. The form further

notified Plaintiff that if he did not return the box to the USMS by

the end of November, the USMS intended to return the second box to

him as well. Doc. No. 10. Plaintiff alleged that the prison was

withholding the returned box from him, thereby preventing him from

effecting service on any of the defendants. Id. 

By order dated December 22, 2006, this Court ordered Salinas

Valley State Prison to turn over to Plaintiff, within two days of

being provided with a copy of the order, any boxes from the USMS

within its possession1

 that contained legal pleadings related to

this case. Doc. No. 11.

On February 5, 2007, the Court received a document from

Plaintiff entitled “Plaintiff’s Access to the Court’s Has Been

Case 3:06-cv-01578-WQH-BLM Document 15 Filed 02/22/07 Page 2 of 7
 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 It is unclear from Plaintiff’s application whether he received this

Court’s December 22, 2006 Order, but it is apparent that the missing box

eventually was returned to Plaintiff.

-3- 06cv1578-WQH (BLM) 

Deliberately Obstructed by Prison Officials Destroying Complaint and

Summons.” Doc. No. 14. In this application for relief, Plaintiff

explains that, though he sent two boxes containing complaints and

service forms for each defendant to the USMS, the USMS has not

served any of the defendants.2 Moreover, because some of the

pleadings in the box that the USMS returned to him had been

destroyed (Plaintiff alleges that prison officials damaged the

documents), Plaintiff is unable to discern which pleadings he must

resubmit to the USMS for service. Plaintiff, therefore, requests

that the Court (a) order the USMS to provide Plaintiff with a list

of the names of the defendants for whom it already has complaints

and service forms (i.e. the ones in the box the USMS retained) and

(b) forward blank USMS Form 285 service forms and AO 440 summons

forms to him so that he may resubmit the appropriate documentation.

DISCUSSION

As an initial matter, this Court construes Plaintiff’s

February 5, 2007 request as an application for extension of time for

service under Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Rule 4(m) requires that a summons and complaint be served upon the

defendant within 120 days of the filing of the complaint. Fed. R.

Civ. P. 4(m). However, courts that have addressed the issue have

determined that where the plaintiff has sought leave to proceed in

forma pauperis, “the 120-day limitation of Rule 4(m) does not begin

‘until the clerk stamps the complaint ‘filed’ following an order

granting in forma pauperis status...’” Matthews v. Marten Transp.,

Ltd., 354 F. Supp. 2d 899, 902 (W.D. Wis. 2005) (quoting

Case 3:06-cv-01578-WQH-BLM Document 15 Filed 02/22/07 Page 3 of 7
 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- 06cv1578-WQH (BLM) 

Williams-Guice v. Bd. of Educ. of the City of Chicago, 45 F.3d 161,

162 (7th Cir. 1995)). Here, the district judge granted Plaintiff’s

motion to proceed in forma pauperis on October 2, 2006, and the

summons issued the same day. Doc. Nos. 6 and 7. More than 120 days

have elapsed since that time. Thus, even if the Court were to grant

the relief Plaintiff seeks, the USMS would be unlikely to effect

service because the service period has expired. 

Under Rule 4(m), the Court may extend the time for service

for an appropriate period upon a showing of “good cause.” Fed. R.

Civ. P. 4(m). “[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 ... should not be penalized by

having his action dismissed for failure to effect service where the

U.S. Marshal or the court clerk has failed to perform his

duties....” Puett v. Blandford, 912 F.2d 270, 275 (9th Cir. 1990).

So long as the prisoner has “provided the necessary information to

help effectuate service,” the USMS’s failure to effect service may

be good cause to extend time to serve under Rule 4(m). See id.; see

also Sellers v. United States, 902 F.2d 598, 602 (7th Cir. 1990)

(“Marshal’s failure to accomplish the task is automatically ‘good

cause’”). In this case, it is unclear why the USMS did not serve

the box of complaints and service forms that it implicitly

acknowledged were orderly and ready for service. Because Plaintiff

satisfied his obligation to provide the USMS with information

necessary to identify the defendants, the USMS’s failure to serve

the defendants named on the service forms in that box constitutes

good cause. As for the box that was returned to Plaintiff,

Plaintiff alleges that he sent the complaints and service forms in

Case 3:06-cv-01578-WQH-BLM Document 15 Filed 02/22/07 Page 4 of 7
 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 At this stage of the litigation, the Court accepts Plaintiff’s

factual allegations as true because Plaintiff’s request for relief essentially

seeks to avoid dismissal for want of prosecution. See Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.

A., 534 U.S. 506, 508 n.1 (2002) (in deciding a motion to dismiss, the court

“must accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint”);

McKeever v. Block, 932 F.2d 795, 798 (9th Cir. 1991) (confirming that pleadings

of pro se plaintiff proceeding with § 1983 claim are to be construed liberally

and that the plaintiff is to be afforded the benefit of any doubt). 

-5- 06cv1578-WQH (BLM) 

neatly organized bundles and some external force (allegedly prison

corrections officers) damaged the pleadings prior to sending them to

the USMS. Accepting Plaintiff’s allegations as true3, the Court

finds that this too provides sufficient good cause to excuse

Plaintiff’s failure to serve the defendants in a timely manner.

Accordingly, the Court finds good cause to grant Plaintiff’s

application for an extension of time to serve the defendants. See

In re Sheehan, 253 F.3d 507, 513 (9th Cir. 2001) (district courts

have broad discretion under Rule 4(m) to extend time for service

even without a showing of good cause); Mann v. American Airlines,

324 F.3d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that district court

may, under the broad discretion granted by Rule 4(m), extend time

for service retroactively after the 120-day service period has

expired).

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

(1) Plaintiff’s application for an extension of time to

serve the defendants is GRANTED;

(2) Plaintiff’s application for an order requiring that he

be provided with twenty-one additional copies of USMS Form 285

service forms is GRANTED; and,

///

Case 3:06-cv-01578-WQH-BLM Document 15 Filed 02/22/07 Page 5 of 7
 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 Because there is no indication on the docket that the USMS attempted

to serve any of the defendants, the Clerk of the Court is directed to prepare a

new “IFP Packet” for each of the twenty-one named defendants.

-6- 06cv1578-WQH (BLM) 

(3) The Clerk of the Court: (a) prepare and provide

Plaintiff with a new “IFP package” which includes certified copies

of the Summons and Complaint for service upon each of the twenty-one

defendants4, a copy of the Court’s October 2, 2006 Order Granting

IFP and Directing U.S. Marshal to effect service per Rule 4(c)(2)

and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) [Doc. No. 6], and one USMS Form 285 for each

defendant listed in the Complaint, as well as a copy of this Order.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:

(4) Good cause for extending the time permitted for service

under Rule 4(m) having been shown, Plaintiff shall complete one USMS

Form 285 for each defendant named in his Complaint and provide the

USMS a copy of the Complaint and Summons for each defendant within

45 days of the filing of this Order. The USMS shall thereafter

serve each defendant, as directed by Plaintiff on a USMS Form 285,

within 30 days of receipt. All costs of service shall be advanced

by the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); Fed. R. Civ. P.

4(c)(2). 

(5) Each defendant served is thereafter ORDERED to respond

to the Complaint within the time provided by the applicable

provisions of Rule 12(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2) (while defendants occasionally may be

permitted to “waive the right to reply to any action brought by a

prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional

facility under section 1983,” once the court has conducted its sua

sponte screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A(b),

and thus, made a preliminary determination based on the face on the

Case 3:06-cv-01578-WQH-BLM Document 15 Filed 02/22/07 Page 6 of 7
 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

-7- 06cv1578-WQH (BLM) 

pleading alone that the plaintiff has a “reasonable opportunity to

prevail on the merits,” the defendants are required to respond). 

(6) Plaintiff shall serve upon Defendants or, if appearance

has been entered by counsel, upon Defendants’ counsel, a copy of

every further pleading or other document submitted for consideration

of the Court. Plaintiff shall include with the original paper to be

filed with the Clerk of the Court a certificate stating the manner

in which a true and correct copy of any document was served on

Defendants, or counsel for Defendants, and the date of service. Any

paper received by the Court which has not been filed with the Clerk

or which fails to include a certificate of service will be

disregarded.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 22, 2007

BARBARA L. MAJOR

United States Magistrate Judge

COPY TO:

HONORABLE WILLIAM Q. HAYES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

ALL COUNSEL AND PARTIES

Case 3:06-cv-01578-WQH-BLM Document 15 Filed 02/22/07 Page 7 of 7