Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00876/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00876-8/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY LLOYD HUGHES,

Plaintiff,

v.

CLAYPOOL, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-00876-LJO-YNP PC

ORDER RE MOTIONS

(Doc. 20, 23)

Plaintiff Anthony Lloyd Hughes (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 3, 2009, Plaintiff

filed a motion requesting that the Court order the California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) to furnish information regardingDefendant Claypool’s known residences. 

(Doc. #20.) On September 29, 2009, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting the Court to enter default

against Defendant. (Doc. #23.)

A. Motion to Furnish Service Information

The U.S. Marshal was ordered by the Court to serve Defendant Claypool with a copy of

Plaintiff’s complaint. A summons was returned unexecuted by the U.S. Marshal, indicating that

Claypool no longer worked at the facility identified by Plaintiff and that the “CDC locator” database

only contained one person by the name of “Claypool.” However, the person in the database was

female and Plaintiff is suing a male by the name of Claypool. On March 3, 2009 Plaintiff filed a

motion requesting that the Court order CDCR to produce all past and present known addresses from

Defendant Claypool’s personnel file.

1

Case 1:06-cv-00876-LJO -JLT Document 24 Filed 02/11/10 Page 1 of 3
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

It is unclear from the unexecuted summons whether CDCR has information regarding

Defendant Claypool’s current residence. Accordingly, the Court will direct that the clerk forward

a copy of this order to the legal affairs division of CDCR. The Court requests that CDCR provide

any information they have regarding a “Mr. Claypool” who worked as a “correctional cook

supervisor” at Pleasant Valley State Prison on or around July 17, 2005, the date of the alleged

incident described in Plaintiff’s complaint. (Compl. 9.) Specifically, the Court requests a current

or last known address for Claypool’s dwelling or usual place of abode, or, if Claypool is still

employed by CDCR, an address for the institution where Claypool is currently employed and can

be served. Given the sensitive nature of the information being requested, Defendant Claypool’s

home address should be forwarded to the Court under seal. If an address is provided, the Court will

order the U.S. Marshall to re-attempt service at that address. If an address is not provided, the Court

requests that CDCR furnish detailed information explaining why it is unable to provide a current

address for Mr. Claypool.

B. Motion for Default

Plaintiff requests an entry of default against Defendant Claypool. Under Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 55(a), “[w]hen a party against whom a judgment for affirmative relief is sought has

failed to plead or otherwise defend, and that failure is shown by affidavit or otherwise, the clerk must

enter the party’s default.”

“A federal court is without personal jurisdiction over a defendant unless the defendant has

been served in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.” Benny v. Pipes, 799 F.2d 489, 492 (9th Cir.

1986) (citing Jackson v. Hayakawa, 682 F.2d 1344, 1347 (9th Cir. 1982)). Neither actual notice nor

simply naming a person in the caption of a complaint will subject a defendant to personal jurisdiction

if service is not made in substantial compliance with Rule 4. Jackson, 682 F.2d at 1347. If the Court

lacks personal jurisdiction over Defendant, Defendant cannot be bound by any judgment rendered

in this case and an entry of default judgment against Defendant would be void. Mason v. Genisco

TechnologyCorp., 960 F.2d 849, 851 (9th Cir. 1982) (citing Yniguez v. Arizona, 939 F.2d 727, 735

(9th Cir. 1991)). Since Defendant Claypool has not yet been properly served, the Court lacks

personal jurisdiction over him. Accordingly, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion for entry of

2

Case 1:06-cv-00876-LJO -JLT Document 24 Filed 02/11/10 Page 2 of 3
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

default. See Rice Corp. v. Grain Bd. of Iraq, 582 F. Supp. 2d 1309, 1311-13 (E.D. Cal. 2008)

(setting aside entry of default upon showing that Defendants were not properly served).

III. Conclusion and Order

The U.S. Marshal has attempted to effect service on Defendant Claypool using the

information provided by Plaintiff. The summons was returned to the Court unexecuted, indicating

that Defendant Claypool no longer worked at the facility identified by Plaintiff and that he could not

be found in the “CDC locator” database. The Court will request that CDCR forward any information

it has regarding Defendant Claypool’s current or last known residence to the Court under seal to

facilitate service of Plaintiff’s complaint. However, because Defendant Claypool has not been

properly served, the Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion for entry of default.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion to furnish service information, filed on March 3, 2009, is

GRANTED;

2. The clerk is directed to forward a copy of this order to the legal affairs division of the

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation;

3. The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation shall furnish to the

Court either:

a. Current or last known information for Defendant Claypool’s dwelling or

usual place of abode, or an address where Defendant Claypool may be served

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. Such information shall be

forwarded to the Court under seal; or

b. If CDCR is unable or unwilling to provide such information, detailed

information explaining why CDCR is unable or unwilling to provide such

information;

4. Plaintiff’s motion for entry of default, filed on September 29, 2009, is DENIED;

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 10, 2010 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 1:06-cv-00876-LJO -JLT Document 24 Filed 02/11/10 Page 3 of 3