Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-00706/USCOURTS-casd-3_10-cv-00706-2/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 10cv0706 MMA (BLM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PAUL ADAMS,

CDCR #F-92755,

Civil No. 10cv0706 MMA (BLM)

Plaintiff,

ORDER:

(1) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO SERVE SUMMONS

UPON ALTERNATE DEFENDANTS

(2) GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL AND

REQUEST TO OBTAIN

ADDRESSES; and 

(3) DENYING MOTION FOR ENTRY

OF DEFAULT

[Doc. Nos. 14, 17 and 19]

vs.

DR. ARAB, et al.,

Defendants.

I.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Paul Adams (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner currently incarcerated at Calipatria State Prison

located in Calipatria, California, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 30, 2010, this Court issued an Order dismissing

Case 3:10-cv-00706-CAB-BLM Document 20 Filed 01/10/11 Page 1 of 4
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 10cv0706 MMA (BLM)

some Defendants and directing the U.S. Marshal to effect service of Plaintiff’s First Amended

Complaint pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(3) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). See July 30, 2010 at 5.

On November 5, 2010, Plaintiff filed a “Motion to Serve Summons Upon Alternate Defendants”

[Doc. No. 14]. Plaintiff later filed a Motion for Appointment of Counsel and Motion to Obtain

Defendants’ Addresses [Doc. No. 17], as well as a “Motion to this Court Requesting Court to

Enter Default Judgment” [Doc. No. 19].

II.

SERVICE OF SUMMONS

On July 30, 2010, the Court issued an Order directing the U.S. Marshal (“USMS”) to

effect service on the Defendants named in Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). See

July 30, 2010 Order at 5. 

In cases involving a plaintiff proceeding IFP, a United States Marshal, upon order of the

court, shall serve the summons and the complaint. FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d).

“‘[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.’” Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994) (quoting Puett

v. Blandford, 912 F.2d 270, 275 (9th Cir. 1990)), abrogated on other grounds by Sandin v.

Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995). “So long as the prisoner has furnished the information necessary

to identify the defendant, the marshal’s failure to effect service is ‘automatically good cause....’”

Walker, 14 F.3d at 1422 (quoting Sellers v. United States, 902 F.2d 598, 603 (7th Cir. 1990)).

However, where a pro se plaintiff fails to provide the USMS with accurate and sufficient

information to effect service of the summons and complaint, the court’s sua sponte dismissal of

the unserved defendants is appropriate. Walker, 14 F.3d at 1421-22; see also Rochon v. Dawson,

828 F.2d 1107, 1110 (5th Cir. 1987) (noting that 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”). 

Case 3:10-cv-00706-CAB-BLM Document 20 Filed 01/10/11 Page 2 of 4
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 10cv0706 MMA (BLM)

Here, Plaintiff seeks assistance in serving Defendants Small and J. Walker. The summons

as to Defendants Small has been returned “unexecuted” [Doc. No. 12]. However, no such filing

has been submitted as to Defendant Walker, so the Court has no information by which to

determine what steps, if any, should be taken to serve Defendant Walker.

As to Defendant Small, the return of summons unexecuted indicates that Defendant has

retired from the CDCR [Doc. No. 13]. Accordingly, as long as Defendant Small’s forwarding

address can be easily ascertained by reference to the CDCR’s personnel records, Plaintiff is

entitled to rely on the USMS to effect service upon this Defendant on his behalf. See Puett, 912

F.2d at 275. 

The Court hereby directs the USMS to contact either the Litigation Coordinator at the

Calipatria State Prison or the CDCR’s Legal Affairs Division, if necessary, and provide a current

address within the CDCR’s records or possession, and to forward the address(es) to the USMS

in a confidential memorandum.

III.

MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL

Plaintiff requests the appointment of counsel to assist him in prosecuting this civil action.

The Constitution provides no right to appointment of counsel in a civil case, however, unless an

indigent litigant may lose his physical liberty if he loses the litigation. Lassiter v. Dept. of Social

Services, 452 U.S. 18, 25 (1981). Nonetheless, under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1), district courts are

granted discretion to appoint counsel for indigent persons. This discretion may be exercised

only under “exceptional circumstances.” Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 1991).

“A finding of exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation of both the ‘likelihood of success

on the merits and the ability of the plaintiff to articulate his claims pro se in light of the

complexity of the legal issues involved.’ Neither of these issues is dispositive and both must be

viewed together before reaching a decision.” Id. (quoting Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d

1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986)).

The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request without prejudice, as neither the interests of justice

nor exceptional circumstances warrant appointment of counsel at this time. LaMere v. Risley,

827 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1987); Terrell, 935 F.2d at 1017.

Case 3:10-cv-00706-CAB-BLM Document 20 Filed 01/10/11 Page 3 of 4
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 10cv0706 MMA (BLM)

IV.

MOTION FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

Plaintiff also seeks an Order from this Court entering default as to Defendants Small and

Walker. However, a review of the Court’s docket indicates that neither of these Defendants have

been properly served in this action. Thus, Plaintiff’s Motion for Entry of Default is DENIED.

V.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Based on the foregoing, the Court hereby:

1) DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for Order Directing Substitute Service on Defendant

Small or Walker [Doc. No. 14];

2) Plaintiff’s Motion for Appointment of Counsel and Motion to Obtain Defendants’

Addresses [Doc. No. 17] is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Plaintiff’s request

for appointment of counsel is DENIED without prejudice. The Court, however, GRANTS

Plaintiff’s motion to the extent it requests the USMS to obtain a forwarding address for

Defendant Small and to attempt to effect service on this Defendant at his forwarding address.

3) The Court therefore DIRECTS the USMS to attempt to obtain the confidential

address of Defendant Small pursuant to the directions set forth above. Following the receipt of

any available address for Defendant Small, the Court ORDERS the USMS to serve a copy of

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint and summons upon this Defendant. All costs of service

shall be advanced by the United States pursuant to the Court’s Order granting Plaintiff leave to

proceed IFP and directing service pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) and FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(3).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:

4) Plaintiff’s “Motion to this Court Requesting Court to Enter Default Judgment

Against Served Defendants” [Doc. No. 19] is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: January 10, 2011

Hon. Michael M. Anello

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-00706-CAB-BLM Document 20 Filed 01/10/11 Page 4 of 4