Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00849/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00849-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

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

Based on plaintiff’s January 22, 2007, filing, it appears that plaintiff was under 1

the mistaken impression that the status/scheduling conference was set for January 30, 2007. 

Defendant Gust Kepreos waived service on August 19, 2006. Defendants Todd 2

Warner, Bruce Hull, Billy Warner, and William Warner were personally served on October 24,

2006. The remaining two defendants – Kenneth Bottoms, David Kirchubel – have not been

served. No defendant has entered an appearance in this court. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PETER T. HARRELL, No. CIV S-06-0849-MCE-CMK

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

GUST KEPREOS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff brings this action for damages, invoking this court’s diversity jurisdiction

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. A status/scheduling conference was held in this matter on

January 16, 2007, at 10:00 a.m. before the undersigned. Plaintiff Peter T. Harrell, who is

proceeding pro se, failed to appear. No defendants appeared. Despite the failure of any party 1 2

to appear at the status/scheduling conference, the court now addresses a number of matters in

Case 2:06-cv-00849-MCE -CMK Document 36 Filed 01/25/07 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

2

this case.

First, as to the withdrawal of James A. Wallan as counsel for defendants, the court

notes that Mr. Wallan’s April 27, 2006, declaration in support of his motion to withdraw did not

satisfy all the requirements of Eastern District of California Local Rule 83-182(d). Specifically, 

the rule requires that counsel: (1) provide the court with the addresses of the clients; (2) serve his

motion on the clients; and (3) state the efforts counsel made to notify the clients of the motion. 

In this case, Mr. Wallan’s declaration does not reflect the address of the defendants or that his

motion was served on the defendants. For the good of the record, Mr. Wallan will be required to

submit a supplemental declaration to satisfy the requirements of Local Rule 83-182(d). If a

proper supplemental declaration is submitted, Mr. Wallan’s withdrawal will be ratified without

further order of the court. Otherwise, the order granting the motion to withdraw will be vacated. 

Second, the court observes that plaintiff has obtained entry of default as to the

five defendants who have been served or waived service. Default was entered by the Clerk of

the Court on January 23, 2007. Because this action proceeds on an amended complaint, Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) governs the time for filing a response. Under Rule 15(a), “[a]

party shall plead in response to an amended pleading within the time remaining for response to

the original pleading or within 10 days after service of the amended pleading . . . unless the court

otherwise orders.” As discussed in more detail below, the court is not satisfied that it has subject

matter jurisdiction over this case. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the court hereby

“otherwise orders” that all defendants are relieved of the obligation to respond to the amended

complaint pending further order of the court. This order will be made nunc pro tunc to January

22, 2007, and the Clerk of the Court will be directed to set aside the defaults entered on January

23, 2007. 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:06-cv-00849-MCE -CMK Document 36 Filed 01/25/07 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

3

Third, on November 28, 2006, plaintiff filed a document entitled “Memorandum”

in which he seeks clarification and modification of the court’s October 30, 2006, order. In this

document, plaintiff states that “. . . on 10/30/2006, the Court ordered Plaintiff to complete the

service of process, inclusive of the Amended Complaint, and additional procedural papers upon

the remaining defendants.” Plaintiff complains that this requirement is not consistent with the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure which, according to plaintiff, require that “all In Forma

Pauperis Plaintiffs must have their Complaints, Summons, and other process served by the US

Marshal. . .” Plaintiff also states that he “. . . is prohibited by Rule from effecting his own

service of process in compliance with the Court’s 10/30/2006 Order.” Based on plaintiff’s

memorandum, it appears that he has not complied with the October 30, 2006, order.

Addressing plaintiff’s request for clarification of the October 30, 2006, because

the United States Marshal had already been provided with adequate copies of the first amended

complaint, plaintiff will be relieved of the obligation to serve copies of the first amended

complaint on any defendant. As to the remaining requirements in the October 30, 2006, order –

that plaintiff serve a copy of the order and the court’s consent form on defendants – plaintiff’s

memorandum demonstrate a misunderstanding of the applicable statutes and rules. While

plaintiff is correct that the in forma pauperis statute provides for service of process by the United

States Marshal, nothing in the October 30, 2006, order requires plaintiff to “effect his own

service.” To the contrary, the order specifically states that plaintiff’s obligations as to the thenunserved defendants did not trigger until after the United States Marshall had completed service

of process pursuant to the court’s August 2, 2006, order. As to defendant Kepreos – who had

already waived service of process as of the date of the October 30, 2006, order – plaintiff was

simply directed to serve documents by mail. Neither requirement contained in the order imposed

upon plaintiff – who has been granted in forma pauperis status – any obligation concerning

service of process. 

/ / /

Case 2:06-cv-00849-MCE -CMK Document 36 Filed 01/25/07 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

4

Therefore, plaintiff will still be required to meet the remaining obligations set out

on the October 30, 2006, order. Specifically, plaintiff will be required to serve on each

defendant, within 10 days after service of process by the United States Marshal, or within 10

days from the date of this order as to the five defendants who have been served, a copy of the

October 30, 2006, order, a copy of this order, and a copy of the form “Consent to Proceed Before

United States Magistrate Judge,” and shall file with the court a certificate reflecting such service

as to each defendant.

Fourth, plaintiff shall show cause, in writing, why this action should not be

dismissed in its entirety for his failure to appear at the January 16, 2007, status/scheduling

conference. Specifically, plaintiff shall explain why he thought the conference was set for

January 30, 2007, despite the October 30, 2006, order which confirms the January 16, 2007,

hearing date. 

Finally, as mentioned above, the court is not satisfied that it has subject matter

jurisdiction over this case. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3), the court must

dismiss an action when it appears that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. In this case, plaintiff is

invoking this court’s diversity subject matter jurisdiction. There is no dispute that all defendants

are residents or citizens of California. In order to invoke diversity jurisdiction, plaintiff alleges

that he is a citizen of Oregon. Specifically, plaintiff alleges:

At all times material, Plaintiff was a citizen of the United States,

and the State of Oregon and subject to their jurisdiction. Plaintiff is an

interstate exchange student attending College of the Siskiyous in Weed,

and Yreka, California, via an agreement with Southern Oregon University. 

During the school year, in exchange for housing, Plaintiff provided

personal care and assistance to Kimberly Olson, a disabled person and

resident of unit #50 in the Cove Mobile Villa mobilehome park located in

Yreka, California. 

The court’s dockets in this case and plaintiff’s other actions reflects, however, that plaintiff has

lived continuously for the past several years in Yreka, California. It thus appears that plaintiff

is, in fact, a resident of California and, therefore, that diversity of citizenship does not exist. 

Case 2:06-cv-00849-MCE -CMK Document 36 Filed 01/25/07 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

5

Because this action raises only state law claims, if diversity does not exist, the court would be

required to dismiss this action without prejudice to proceeding in a state court of general

jurisdiction. 

Plaintiff shall also show cause, in writing, why this action should not be

dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Specifically, plaintiff shall attach to his

declaration a copy of his driver’s license, a copy of his voter registration card, a copy of the

above-referenced agreement with Southern Oregon University, and copies of his employment

records such as pay stubs. Plaintiff shall also provide the court with his current Oregon address,

a statement as to the status of his education, and the names and addresses of anyone who lives

with plaintiff in Oregon. Following submission of plaintiff’s response to this order to show

cause, the court will determine whether a hearing is necessary to explore jurisdiction. 

Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to comply with any portion of this order could

result in dismissal of the entire action for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with court

rules and orders. See Local Rule 11-110. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Mr. Wallan shall submit a supplemental declaration consistent with Local

Rule 83-182(d) within 30 days of the date of this order;

2. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), defendants are relieved

of their obligation to file a response to the amended complaint, nunc pro tunc to January 22,

2007;

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to set aside the defaults entered on

January 23, 2007;

4. The court’s October 30, 2006, order is clarified and/or modified as set

forth herein;

/ / /

/ / /

Case 2:06-cv-00849-MCE -CMK Document 36 Filed 01/25/07 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

6

5. Plaintiff shall serve on each defendant, within 10 days after service of

process by the United States Marshal, or within 10 days from the date of this order as to the five

defendants who have been served, a copy of the October 30, 2006, order, a copy of this order,

and a copy of the form “Consent to Proceed Before United States Magistrate Judge,” and shall

file with the court a certificate reflecting such service as to each defendant.

6. Plaintiff shall show cause, in writing, why this action should not be

dismissed for plaintiff’s failure to appear at the January 16, 2007, status/scheduling conference

and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction;

7. The Clerk of the Court is directed to forward to plaintiff copies (one for

plaintiff plus one for each defendant) of the form “Consent to Proceed Before United States

Magistrate Judge;” and

8. The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this order on Mr. Wallan at

717 Murphy Road, Medford, OR 97504.

DATED: January 24, 2007.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00849-MCE -CMK Document 36 Filed 01/25/07 Page 6 of 6