Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-01093/USCOURTS-caed-1_20-cv-01093-4/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARIO A. VALENZUELA,

Plaintiff,

v.

SANTIESTEBAN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:20-cv-01093-NONE-BAM (PC)

ORDER CLARIFYING DEADLINE TO FILE 

RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT

(ECF No. 21)

Response to Complaint Due: January 5, 2021

Plaintiff Mario A. Valenzuela (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds against 

Defendants Santiesteban, Rodriguez, and Alejo for excessive force in violation of the Eighth 

Amendment and against Defendant Perez for failure to protect in violation of the Eighth 

Amendment, arising from the incident on June 22, 2019.

On October 23, 2020, the Court found service of the complaint appropriate and directed 

service on Defendants Santiesteban, Rodriguez, Alejo, and Perez under the Court’s E-Service 

pilot program. (ECF No. 14.) Pursuant to that order, the service order, summonses, and the 

operative complaint were served via email on the California Department of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). On November 6, 2020, CDCR filed a Notice of E-Service Waiver 

indicating that all Defendants intended to waive service. (ECF No. 18.) The California Attorney 

General’s Office timely filed a waiver of service of process for all Defendants on December 3, 

Case 1:20-cv-01093-JLT-BAM Document 22 Filed 12/04/20 Page 1 of 2
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

2020. (ECF No. 21.)

Pursuant to the Court’s E-Service Order, “[a] defendant who timely waives service need 

not serve an answer to the complaint until 60 days after the waiver of service of process was 

sent.” (ECF No. 14, p. 3.) Further, “[f]or any defendant that the CDCR advises will be waiving 

service, the date the CDCR files its Notice of E-Service Waiver will be considered the date the 

request for waiver was sent.” (Id.)

Defendants’ waiver of service, as well as the Court’s docket entry for the submitted 

waiver, incorrectly reflects that Defendants’ answer or motion under Rule 12 is due within 60 

days after December 3, 2020, or the date the waiver was filed. (ECF No. 21.)

By the instant order, the Court clarifies that pursuant to the October 23, 2020 E-Service 

Order, Defendants’ answer or other responsive pleading is due within 60 days after November 6, 

2020, the date CDCR’s Notice of E-Service Waiver was filed. Should Defendants require 

additional time to respond to the complaint, they may file a motion for an extension of time 

setting forth good cause in support of the request.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants shall file an answer or other 

response to the complaint on or before January 5, 2021.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 4, 2020 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:20-cv-01093-JLT-BAM Document 22 Filed 12/04/20 Page 2 of 2