Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_00-cv-00905/USCOURTS-cand-3_00-cv-00905-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERNESTO G. LIRA,

Plaintiff,

 v.

DIRECTOR OF CORRECTIONS OF THE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 00-905 SI

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT

MANN’S MOTION TO DISMISS

Defendant Karen Mann has filed a motion to dismiss based on insufficiency of service of

process, which is currently set for a hearing on January 12, 2007. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b),

the Court determines the matter is appropriate for resolution without oral argument, and VACATES the

hearing. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES the motion.

BACKGROUND

On March 14, 2000, plaintiff Ernesto Lira, acting in pro per, filed his original complaint in this

case. Plaintiff alleged that his due process rights were violated in connection with his gang validation

process and his continued retention in Administrative Segregation. On January 22, 2001, the Court

issued an Order of Service, finding plaintiff’s complaint stated a cognizable claim for relief and ordering

the U.S. Marshals Service to serve eighteen defendants, including defendant Mann.

On February 26, 2001, the Litigation Coordinator at Duel Vocational Institution (DVI) did not

accept service for Mann because Mann no longer worked at that institution. Wolff Decl., Ex. A. On

June 21, 2001, the U.S. Marshals Service filed a return of service with the Court stating that service was

Case 3:00-cv-00905-SI Document 115 Filed 01/08/07 Page 1 of 6
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

 Mann’s motion papers do not state whether she received that complaint.

2

 The court docket entry incorrectly states that service had been effected upon Mann. See Docket

No. 29. Although plaintiff emphasizes this fact and states that, as a result of this docket entry, he had

“every reason to believe that the Marshals had effected sufficient service on Mann,” plaintiff has not

submitted a declaration stating that he actually relied on this docket entry.

2

refused by DVI with respect to Mann, that the Service had learned that Mann was now working for the

Parole Office in Region I located in Sacramento, California, and that the complaint was mailed to this

address on March 5, 2001. Feudale Decl. Ex. B; Docket No. 29.1 The return also stated, “[n]o

acknowledgment received as of 6/20/01.” Id.2

Defendants filed an answer to the complaint on October 24, 2001. The answer stated that Mann

had not been served, and that no appearance was made on her behalf. On October 30, 2001, plaintiff

sent a letter to the Court seeking clarification of the status of Mann’s service. He wrote:

In the answer, page 1, footnote 1, Defendants aver that Defendant K. Mann has not yet

been served, nor requested representation, and no appearance is made on behalf of

Defendant. On page 6 of Defendants’ answer they deny allegations against[] Defendant

K. Mann. I am confused, so please answer the following questions. #1. What efforts

should I take in order that Defendant K. Mann can be served and represented – please

note that I have no access to a phone or any assistance with my cause . . . #2. Can I

request that the first defendants provide me with present location of Defendant K. Mann

in order to serve her?

Chapman Decl. Ex. A; Docket No. 38. Plaintiff sent another letter on December 5, 2001, advising the

Court of the address at which he believed Mann could be served, and repeating his request for guidance:

Your Honor a Defendant in my ongoing action before this Court has not been served with

my complaint and/or civil action against her. Her name is Mrs. K. Mann and to my

knowledge her present address is:

Parole Region One

9825 Goethe Rd. Suite 200

Sacramento, Cal. 95827

What do I do? Do I provide this address to the Defendant[’s] attorney? Do I again serve

her with a complaint and summons? Do I forward this above address to the U.S.

Marshals Service? . . . [P]lease advi[s]e me how I may proceed and serve Defendant K.

Mann.

Id., Ex. B; Docket No. 45.

In February 2002, plaintiff communicated with Mann directly, informing her that she needed to

contact defendants’ counsel at the Attorney General’s Office, and enclosing a copy of a declaration and

Case 3:00-cv-00905-SI Document 115 Filed 01/08/07 Page 2 of 6
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

a set of interrogatories. Mann acknowledges that she received this letter. See Def’s Motion at 2; Wolff

Decl., Ex. B. Plaintiff’s letter stated, inter alia, 

It took me some time to get your address. I had to get at your boss man E. Alameida Jr.

Who is now the Director of Corrections, que no?

Check it out Mrs. K. Mann. You need to contact the attorney who is represented in this

civil action as your attorney. His name is Mr. Jonathan L. Wolff, and his number is (415-

703-1113). 

Wolff Decl. Ex. B. Plaintiff and defendants’ counsel then exchanged letters about Mann’s status. Id.

at Ex. C-E. A letter dated March 8, 2002, from defendants’ counsel to plaintiff stated:

To our knowledge, Ms. Mann has not been served in this case. In order for her to be

properly served, you should request that the U.S. Marshal’s office serve her pursuant to

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. For your information, Ms. Mann may

be served c/o Litigation Coordinator, Parole Region II, 1515 Clay Street, 10th Floor,

Oakland, CA 94612. Only after Ms. Mann has been properly served may discovery be

propounded upon her. 

Id., Ex. E. On May 16, 2002, plaintiff submitted a request with the U.S. Marshals Service asking the

Marshals to serve Mann at the address listed in the March 8, 2002 letter. See Chapman Decl. Ex. C;

Docket No. 64. 

The next day, on May 17, 2002, the Court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment,

concluding that plaintiff’s complaint contained both exhausted and unexhausted claims, and that the

Prison Litigation Reform Act mandated dismissal under such circumstances. Presumably because of

the summary judgment order, the U.S. Marshals Service never served Mann as requested in plaintiff’s

May 16, 2002 letter.

Plaintiff appealed the summary judgment order, and the Ninth Circuit reversed. The case was

remanded to this Court on December 28, 2005. Now represented by counsel, on June 28, 2006, plaintiff

moved to correct and amend his complaint pursuant to the Ninth Circuit’s mandate. By order filed

August 29, 2006, the Court granted plaintiff’s motion and deemed his amended complaint filed. On

October 2, 2006, a summons was issued as to Mann, and she was served with the summons and amended

complaint on October 3, 2006. 

DISCUSSION

 Mann moves to dismiss the complaint for insufficiency of service of process, contending that

Case 3:00-cv-00905-SI Document 115 Filed 01/08/07 Page 3 of 6
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

plaintiff never served her with the original complaint, and thus that she should be dismissed from this

action. Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes the dismissal of an action if service

of the summons and complaint is not effected within 120 days after the filing of the complaint. Rule

4 also provides “that if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court shall extend the time for

service for an appropriate period.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). “At a minimum, ‘good cause’ means excusable

neglect. A plaintiff may also be required to show the following: (a) the party to be served personally

received actual notice of the lawsuit; (b) the defendant would suffer no prejudice; and (c) plaintiff would

be severely prejudiced if his complaint were dismissed.” Boudette v. Barnette, 923 F.2d 754, 756 (9th

Cir. 1991). “The current rule requires a district court to grant an extension of time if good cause is

shown, and permits the district court to grant such an extension even absent good cause.” Mann v Am.

Airlines, 324 F.3d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003).

The Court concludes that there was good cause for the failure to serve Mann with the original

complaint, and finds Puett v. Blandford, 912 F.2d 270 (9th Cir. 1990), instructive. In Puett, the Ninth

Circuit held a district court abused its discretion in dismissing a complaint for failure to timely serve,

finding that the plaintiff had demonstrated good cause for the failure to serve because he

“conscientiously took numerous steps to ensure that the defendants would be served,” and the Marshals

Service did not effect proper service. Id. at 275. “[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, having

provided the necessary information to help effectuateservice, plaintiff should not be penalized by having

his or her action dismissed for failure to effect service where the U.S. Marshal or the court clerk has

failed to perform the duties required of each of them under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(c) and Rule 4 of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.” Id.

Here, the record shows that the U.S. Marshals Service first attempted to serve Mann in February

2001 at DVI, and again at a different address after determining that Mann had relocated to the Region

I Parole Office in Sacramento, California. There is no indication in the record whether the U.S.

Marshals Service further attempted service, despite the notation on the June 2001 return of service that

they had not received an acknowledgment of service as of June 22, 2001. Once defendants filed an

answer in October 2001 stating that Mann had not been served, plaintiff promptly acted to cure the

Case 3:00-cv-00905-SI Document 115 Filed 01/08/07 Page 4 of 6
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

5

deficiency in service. Plaintiff immediately sent a letter to the Court seeking clarification and assistance

with serving Mann. Plaintiff sent another letter to the Court on December 5, 2001, providing what he

believed was Mann’s new work address at the Region I Parole Office in Sacramento. Plaintiff continued

to take steps regarding service of Mann, communicating with her directly in February 2002, and then

corresponding with defendants’ counsel about how to effect service on Mann. Defense counsel advised

plaintiff to request a renewed service attempt by the U.S. Marshals Service, and provided plaintiff with

the correct address for Mann. Plaintiff followed that advice and requested renewed service by letter

lodged May 16, 2002. Service was never effected, presumably due to the Court’s May 17, 2002 order

granting summary judgment in favor of defendants. Plaintiff has established good cause to excuse the

failure to timely serve Mann with the original complaint because he acted diligently to cure the

deficiencies in service.

The Court further finds that the other factors mentioned in Boudette weigh in favor of excusing

the service deficiency. Mann does not deny that she received actual notice of the lawsuit by plaintiff’s

February 5, 2002 letter to her, and the record is unclear as to whether Mann received the complaint that

the U.S. Marshals Service mailed to her at the Sacramento office in March 2001. 

Relatedly, the Court finds that Mann will not be prejudiced from the failure to serve the original

complaint. Mann asserts that she will be prejudiced because the events giving rise to plaintiff’s

complaint occurred in 1996, and thus “it is likely that her memory with respect to many of the allegations

against her has faded.” Reply at 7. However, because Mann had actual notice of the lawsuit no later

than February 2002, she could have taken steps at that time to preserve her memories of the events at

issue. Moreover, the passage of time in this case is due largely to the appeal of the summary judgment

order, and all defendants will face this same difficulty of fading memories. 

Plaintiff would also be severely prejudiced if defendant Mann’s motion to dismiss was granted

because the claims against Mann would likely be time-barred. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) Adv. Comm.

Notes (1993) (“Relief may be justified, for example, if the applicable statute of limitations would bar

the refiled action . . .”); see also Mann, 324 F.3d at 1090 (discussing Rule 4(m) and 1993 Advisory

Committee Notes quoted supra). 

Finally, the Court notes that even if plaintiff had not established good cause under Rule 4(m),

Case 3:00-cv-00905-SI Document 115 Filed 01/08/07 Page 5 of 6
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

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

6

the Court would exercise its discretion to extend the time to serve Mann past the 120-day deadline.

Plaintiff has been incarcerated in Administrative Segregation during the pendency of this lawsuit, and

was acting pro se for much of this litigation. The record reflects some degree of confusion as to Mann’s

location and proper address for service. Once alerted to the deficiency in service on Mann, plaintiff took

a number of steps to cure the deficiency, including directly contacting Mann and corresponding with

defendants’ counsel, and requesting that the U.S. Marshals Service re-serve Mann.

CONCLUSION

 For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby DENIES defendant Mann’s motion to dismiss.

(Docket No. 107). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 8, 2007 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:00-cv-00905-SI Document 115 Filed 01/08/07 Page 6 of 6