Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-02620/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-02620-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

Order of Service upon Defendant Myers; Order Directing Plaintiff to Effectuate Service upon or Provide Court with

Location Information for Defendant Ledwith; Denying Motion for Default

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.05\Jackson620srv2&4m 1

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ARMAND A. JACKSON,

Plaintiff,

 vs.

OFFICER LEDWITH, et al., 

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 05-2620 JF (PR)

ORDER OF SERVICE UPON

DEFENDANT MYERS;

ORDER DIRECTING

PLAINTIFF TO EFFECTUATE

SERVICE UPON OR

PROVIDE COURT WITH

LOCATION INFORMATION

FOR DEFENDANT

LEDWITH; DENYING

MOTION FOR DEFAULT

(Docket No. 40)

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. After reviewing the second amended complaint, the Court found that it

stated cognizable claims against Defendants Mark Myers of the San Mateo Sheriff’s

Department and Officer Ledwith of the Belmont Police Department for the use of

excessive force. On May 18, 2007, the Court ordered the second amended complaint

served upon Defendant Ledwith and directed Plaintiff to provide location information for

Defendant Myers. 

Case 5:05-cv-02620-JF Document 42 Filed 05/01/08 Page 1 of 6
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

 1The Marshal indicated that Ledwith no longer works at the Belmont Police

Department.

Order of Service upon Defendant Myers; Order Directing Plaintiff to Effectuate Service upon or Provide Court with

Location Information for Defendant Ledwith; Denying Motion for Default

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.05\Jackson620srv2&4m 2

DISCUSSION

1. Defendant Myers

On July 2, 2007, Plaintiff provided the Court with Myers’s location information. 

Accordingly, the Court will order service of the second amended complaint upon Myers

at the location provided by Plaintiff.

2. Defendant Ledwith

The May 18, 2007 order directed the clerk to prepare the summons for service of

the second amended complaint upon Ledwith, and the United States Marshal to effectuate

such service. The Clerk prepared the summons for service of Ledwith at the Belmont

Police Department, where Plaintiff indicated he was located. The Marshal returned the

summons unexecuted because Ledwith was not located at the Belmont Police

Department.1

In cases wherein the Plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis, the “officers of the court

shall issue and serve all process.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). The Court must appoint the

Marshal to effect service, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2), and the Marshal, upon order of the

Court, must serve the summons and the complaint, see Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415,

1422 (9th Cir. 1994). Although a Plaintiff who is incarcerated and proceeding in forma

pauperis may rely on service by the Marshal, such Plaintiff “may not remain silent and do

nothing to effectuate such service”; rather, “[a]t a minimum, a plaintiff should request

service upon the appropriate defendant and attempt to remedy any apparent defects of

which [he] has knowledge.” Rochon v. Dawson, 828 F.2d 1107, 1110 (5th Cir. 1987). 

Here, Plaintiff’s second amended complaint has been pending for well over 120

days, and thus, absent a showing of “good cause,” is subject to dismissal without

prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Plaintiff has not provided sufficient information to

allow the Marshal to locate and serve Ledwith, and consequently Plaintiff must remedy

Case 5:05-cv-02620-JF Document 42 Filed 05/01/08 Page 2 of 6
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

Order of Service upon Defendant Myers; Order Directing Plaintiff to Effectuate Service upon or Provide Court with

Location Information for Defendant Ledwith; Denying Motion for Default

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.05\Jackson620srv2&4m 3

the situation or face dismissal of his complaint without prejudice. See Walker v. Sumner,

14 F.3d at 1421-22 (holding prisoner failed to show cause why prison official should not

be dismissed under Rule 4(m) where prisoner failed to show he had provided Marshal

with sufficient information to effectuate service). Accordingly, the claims against

Ledwith will be dismissed without prejudice under Rule 4(m) unless Plaintiff either

himself effects service upon Ledwith, or provides the Court with an accurate current

location such that the Marshal is able to effect service upon him.

CONCLUSION

The Court hereby orders as follows:

1. Plaintiff must either himself effect service on Defendant Ledwith, or

provide the Court with an accurate current location such that the Marshal is able to effect

service. If Plaintiff fails to effectuate service on Defendant Ledwith, or provide the Court

with an accurate current location for said Defendant, within thirty (30) days of the date

this order is filed, Plaintiff’s claims against said Defendant will be dismissed without

prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

2. The Clerk shall issue a summons and the United States Marshal shall serve, 

without prepayment of fees, copies of the second amended complaint in this matter,

received on January 29, 2007, all attachments thereto, and copies of this order on at

Officer Mark Myers of the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Department, County

Government Center, 400 County Center, Redwood City, California 94063. The

Clerk shall also serve a copy of this order on Plaintiff and mail a courtesy copy of this

order and the second amended complaint to the San Mateo County Counsel’s Office. 

3. No later than July 15, 2008, Defendants shall file a motion for summary

judgment or other dispositive motion with respect to the claim in the complaint found to

be cognizable above. 

a. If Defendants elect to file a motion to dismiss on the grounds that

Plaintiff failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies as required by 42 U.S.C.

Case 5:05-cv-02620-JF Document 42 Filed 05/01/08 Page 3 of 6
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

 2The following notice is adapted from the summary judgment notice to be given to pro

se prisoners as set forth in Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 963 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc). 

See Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d at 1120 n.14.

Order of Service upon Defendant Myers; Order Directing Plaintiff to Effectuate Service upon or Provide Court with

Location Information for Defendant Ledwith; Denying Motion for Default

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.05\Jackson620srv2&4m 4

§ 1997e(a), Defendants shall do so in an unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion pursuant to

Wyatt v. Terhune, 315 F.3d 1108, 1119-20 (9th Cir. 2003).

b. Any motion for summary judgment shall be supported by adequate

factual documentation and shall conform in all respects to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure. Defendants are advised that summary judgment cannot be granted,

nor qualified immunity found, if material facts are in dispute. If any Defendant is of

the opinion that this case cannot be resolved by summary judgment, he shall so

inform the Court prior to the date the summary judgment motion is due. 

4. Plaintiff’s opposition to the dispositive motion shall be filed with the Court

and served on Defendants no later than thirty (30) days from the date Defendants’

motion is filed. 

a. In the event Defendants file an unenumerated motion to dismiss

under Rule 12(b), Plaintiff is hereby cautioned as follows:2

The Defendants have made a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule

12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on the ground you have not

exhausted your administrative remedies. The motion will, if granted, result

in the dismissal of your case. When a party you are suing makes a motion

to dismiss for failure to exhaust, and that motion is properly supported by

declarations (or other sworn testimony) and/or documents, you may not

simply rely on what your complaint says. Instead, you must set out specific

facts in declarations, depositions, answers to interrogatories, or documents,

that contradict the facts shown in the Defendant’s declarations and

documents and show that you have in fact exhausted your claims. If you do

not submit your own evidence in opposition, the motion to dismiss, if

appropriate, may be granted and the case dismissed.

b. In the event Defendants file a motion for summary judgment, the 

Ninth Circuit has held that the following notice should be given to Plaintiffs:

The defendants have made a motion for summary judgment by

which they seek to have your case dismissed. A motion for summary

judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure will, if

granted, end your case. 

Rule 56 tells you what you must do in order to oppose a motion for

Case 5:05-cv-02620-JF Document 42 Filed 05/01/08 Page 4 of 6
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

Order of Service upon Defendant Myers; Order Directing Plaintiff to Effectuate Service upon or Provide Court with

Location Information for Defendant Ledwith; Denying Motion for Default

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.05\Jackson620srv2&4m 5

summary judgment. Generally, summary judgment must be granted when

there is no genuine issue of material fact--that is, if there is no real dispute

about any fact that would affect the result of your case, the party who asked

for summary judgment is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, which will

end your case. When a party you are suing makes a motion for summary

judgment that is properly supported by declarations (or other sworn

testimony), you cannot simply rely on what your complaint says. Instead,

you must set out specific facts in declarations, depositions, answers to

interrogatories, or authenticated documents, as provided in Rule 56(e), that

contradict the facts shown in the defendants’ declarations and documents

and show that there is a genuine issue of material fact for trial. If you do

not submit your own evidence in opposition, summary judgment, if

appropriate, may be entered against you. If summary judgment is granted

in favor of defendants, your case will be dismissed and there will be no

trial.

See Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 963 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc). Plaintiff is advised to

read Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477

U.S. 317 (1986) (holding party opposing summary judgment must come forward with

evidence showing triable issues of material fact on every essential element of his claim). 

Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to file an opposition to Defendants’ motion for summary

judgment may be deemed to be a consent by Plaintiff to the granting of the motion, and

granting of judgment against plaintiff without a trial. See Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52,

53-54 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam); Brydges v. Lewis, 18 F.3d 651, 653 (9th Cir. 1994). 

5. Defendants shall file a reply brief no later than fifteen (15) days after

Plaintiff’s opposition is filed. 

6. The motion shall be deemed submitted as of the date the reply brief is due. 

No hearing will be held on the motion unless the Court so orders at a later date. 

7. Discovery may be taken in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

No further Court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 30(a)(2) or Local Rule 16-1 is

required before the parties may conduct discovery.

//

//

Case 5:05-cv-02620-JF Document 42 Filed 05/01/08 Page 5 of 6
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

Order of Service upon Defendant Myers; Order Directing Plaintiff to Effectuate Service upon or Provide Court with

Location Information for Defendant Ledwith; Denying Motion for Default

P:\pro-se\sj.jf\cr.05\Jackson620srv2&4m 6

8. As Defendants have not been served, Plaintiff’s motion for default

judgment is DENIED.

This order terminates Docket No. 40. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: JEREMY FOGEL 

United States District Judge

4/25/08

Case 5:05-cv-02620-JF Document 42 Filed 05/01/08 Page 6 of 6