Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00337/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00337-5/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD M. GILMAN, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-0337 FCD GGH P

vs.

J. WOODFORD, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s December 20, 2005, motion for

sanctions against defense counsel for failing to file a responsive pleading. For the following

reasons, this motion is denied. 

Plaintiff paid the filing fee. Accordingly, on September 2, 2005, the court ordered

plaintiff to serve defendants with process within sixty days. On October 19, 2005, plaintiff filed

a motion requesting that the U.S. Marshal effect service. On November 22, 2005, the court

issued an order stating that the U.S. Marshal is only authorized to effect service in actions when

the plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis. The court granted plaintiff thirty days to submit an

in forma pauperis application.

/////

Case 2:05-cv-00337-FCD-GGH Document 31 Filed 01/09/06 Page 1 of 2
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

Plaintiff did not submit an in forma pauperis application. However, he apparently

did attempt to effect service of defendants on his own because on December 15, 2005, defendants

filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) and (b)(6).

In the motion for sanctions, plaintiff argues that had defendants been served with

process by the U.S. Marshal, then they would have been required to file an answer rather than a

motion to dismiss. Plaintiff suggests that defendants committed misconduct by not waiting for

service by the U.S. Marshal so that they could file a motion to dismiss rather than an answer.

Plaintiff is informed that a motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) and

(b)(6) is a proper responsive pleading. Defendants could have filed this motion had they been

served with process by the U.S. Marshal. Plaintiff also suggests that defendants’ motion is

untimely. Because plaintiff himself served defendants with process, it is his burden to

demonstrate that defendants did not timely respond. Plaintiff has not met his burden. Plaintiff

has not, for example, demonstrated when and how he served defendants with process. 

For the reasons discussed above, plaintiff’s motion for sanctions is denied. On

December 21, 2005, plaintiff filed a letter with the court requesting that he be sent USM-285

forms so that he may serve defendants. Because defendants have appeared in this action by filing

the motion to dismiss, no further service is required.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s December 20, 2005, motion for sanctions is denied;

2. Plaintiff’s December 21, 2005, request for USM-285 forms is denied;

3. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of this order to file an opposition

to defendants’ motion to dismiss; failure to file an opposition within that time will be deemed a

waiver of opposition.

DATED: 1/9/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

gil337.ord UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-00337-FCD-GGH Document 31 Filed 01/09/06 Page 2 of 2