Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01711/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-01711-8/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEVONTE B. HARRIS, 

Plaintiff,

v.

KEITH HIGGINS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:08-cv-01711-LDG

ORDER

Plaintiff Devonte B. Harris moves for re-service of his complaint on

defendants T. Brown, K.M. Chastain, J.G. Watcher, G. Stratton and Matt Gallagher.

The Court ordered that the plaintiff provide the information necessary for service of

process on all defendants. The plaintiff returned the required papers, and the Court

ordered the US Marshal to notify the defendants of the commencement of this action and

to request a waiver of service. The US Marshal filed the returned waivers of service for

several of the named defendants and further filed process receipts for the above-named

defendants indicating that each of the defendants could not be located. The receipt further

Case 2:08-cv-01711-EFB Document 45 Filed 08/10/16 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

indicated the summons had been forwarded to the California Department of Corrections

and Rehabilitation (CDCR) special investigator, and that the special investigator was

unable to identify the named defendants from the information provided by the plaintiff. A

review of the information provided by the plaintiff regarding the identity of each of the

unserved defendants was to provide a name or initial and last name, and the prison

location and capacity in which the defendant was employed. In seeking re-service, the

plaintiff does not provide any further information that would further permit the successful

identification of any of the unserved defendants.

A review of the Court’s records indicates that defendants Watcher, Stratton, and

Gallagher are not named in either of the remaining claims that have not been dismissed for

failure to state a claim or failure to exhaust. The Court will not require the US Marshal to

attempt re-service of the complaint upon these defendants. 

The plaintiff did not seek re-service until more than nine months after the US

Marshal returned the unexecuted summons, and six months after the Court dismissed

three of the plaintiff’s claims (naming several of the unserved defendants as well as several

of the served defendants) for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The plaintiff has

not attempted to provide the Court with any additional information that would allow the

identification of the individuals he seeks to be served as defendants. Under these

circumstances, the Court will not order the US Marshal to engage in any further effort to

serve the unserved defendants. Rather, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 4(m), the Court will

dismiss the unserved defendants without prejudice.

A review of the docket indicates that, subsequent to dismissal of the unserved

defendants, the only remaining claim in this case will be plaintiff’s Fourth Claim for Relief,

which names only defendant Keith Higgins. The Court has previously dismissed the claims

against the other served defendants.

2

Case 2:08-cv-01711-EFB Document 45 Filed 08/10/16 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

Therefore, for good cause shown,

THE COURT ORDERS that Plaintiff’s Motion for Re-Service of Complaint (#44) is

DENIED;

THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS that unserved defendants T. Brown, K.M.

Chastain, J.G. Watcher, G. Stratton and Matt Gallagher are DISMISSED from this action

without prejudice;

THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS that Plaintiff’s Sixth Claim for Relief, which

names only unserved defendants, is DISMISSED without prejudice;

THE COURT FURTHER ORDERS that not later than sixty (60) days from the date

of this order, Defendant Keith Higgins shall file a motion for summary judgment or other

dispositive motion with respect to Plaintiff’s Fourth Claim for Relief. 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. Defendant is

advised that summary judgment cannot be granted, nor qualified immunity found, if

material facts are in dispute. If the 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.

The COURT FURTHER ORDERS that Plaintiff's opposition to the dispositive motion

shall be filed with the Court and served on Defendant no later than thirty (30) days from the

date Defendant’s motion is filed.

DATED this ______ day of August, 2016.

Lloyd D. George

United States District Judge

3

Case 2:08-cv-01711-EFB Document 45 Filed 08/10/16 Page 3 of 3