Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05806/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05806-0/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

District Court

 E. D. California

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

)

JASON SAUNDERS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

J.W. FAIRMAN, et al., )

) 

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

CV F- 02-5806 OWW DLB P 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

OF NOVEMBER 15, 2004 AND

FEBRUARY 4, 2005 

(DOC 50)

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

section 1983. The Court has previously ruled that plaintiff is not entitled to proceed in forma

pauperis in this action because he has previously accumulated at least three qualifying dismissals on

the grounds of being frivolous, malicious, or failing to state a claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Court’s

Order filed September 25, 2002. On November 15, 2004, the Magistrate Judge recommended that

this action be dismissed based on plaintiff’s failure to obey the Court’s order of April 23, 2004

directing plaintiff to effect service on defendants. Plaintiff filed objections to the recommendation

and the Court adopted the recommendation and dismissed the case on February 4, 2005. Plaintiff

filed a Notice of Appeal on February 9, 2005. On July 19, 2006, plaintiff moved this Court pursuant

to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(a) and (b) to reconsider its orders of November 15, 2004 and

February 4, 2005. 

Case 1:02-cv-05806-LJO -DLB Document 51 Filed 08/29/06 Page 1 of 7
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

District Court

 E. D. California

2

A. Procedural Background

Plaintiff filed this action on July 5, 2002 along with a request to proceed in forma pauperis. 

On September 25, 2002, the Court denied plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis because

plaintiff had previously accumulated at least three qualifying dismissals on the grounds of being

frivolous, malicious, or failing to state a claim. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Court’s Order filed September

25, 2002. The Court therefore ordered to pay the $150.00 filing fee within thirty (30) days.

On December 26, 2002, plaintiff paid the $150.00 filing fee for this action. By order filed

March 17, 2003, the Court directed plaintiff to serve defendants with process. The Court advised

plaintiff to follow Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in serving process on defendants.

Plaintiff was also advised:

[P]ursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d)(2), he may notify each defendant

of the commencement of this action and request that the defendant waive service of

the summons. The notice and request must be addressed directly to each defendant

(not the Attorney General), must be dispatched (mailed) though first class mail, and

must be accompanied by a copy of the complaint. The waiver shall set forth the date

on which the request is sent and shall allow each defendant at least 30 days in which

to return the waiver. Plaintiff is advised to use the form entitled “Notice of Lawsuit

and Request for Waiver of Service of Summons,” of which eleven copies accompany

this order. Pursuant to Federal Rule 4(d)(4), the action will proceed as if summons

and complaint had been served when plaintiff filed with the court a waiver of service

for each defendant, signed by each defendant. 

On May 27, 2003, the Court directed the Clerk of Court to re-issue summons and waiver of

personal service forms for plaintiff. In the same order of May 27, 2003, the Court directed plaintiff

to serve defendants with process within 90 days.

In motions filed April 14 and May 19, 2003, plaintiff requested a court order directing prison

officials to “tender appropriate fees essential to plaintiff formally effecting service upon defendants.” 

The Magistrate Judge construed the motion as one for injunctive relief and recommended denial of

plaintiff’s motion. The recommendation was adopted by the Court by order filed July 18, 2003. 

On June 12, 2003, plaintiff filed a notice explaining his attempts to serve defendants. 

Plaintiff indicated that he “forward[ed] the required forms along with correspondence to Litigation

Case 1:02-cv-05806-LJO -DLB Document 51 Filed 08/29/06 Page 2 of 7
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

District Court

 E. D. California

3

Coordinator Bill Ndoh at SATF facility for summoning defendants in attempts to secure waiver of

formal service upon each [defendants.” Plaintiff’s Notice, pp.1-2. In motions filed June 16, 2003

and July 14, 2003 plaintiff again notified the Court that defendants had failed to return the waiver of

service forms. 

On April 23, 2004, the Court denied various motions filed by plaintiff seeking to have the

United States Marshal effectuate service of defendants. The Court advised plaintiff that because he

was not proceeding in forma pauperis, it was his responsibility to effect personal service on

defendants if they did not return the waiver of service forms. In the April 23, 2004 Order, the Court

also granted plaintiff an additional thirty days in which to execute personal service on defendants.

On May 26, 2004, plaintiff filed a document entitled “Plaintiff’s Notice of Service of

Defendants” in which plaintiff asserted that he had effected service upon on all defendants with the

exception of defendants Powers and Saunders. However, plaintiff attached no proof of personal

service on defendants nor did he provide waivers of service for the defendants. On June 14, 2004,

plaintiff filed a “Supplement to Plaintiff’s Notice of Service of Defendant’s Dated May 24, 2004 and

Pursuant to FRCP R. 15 (D)” in which he claimed to have fully complied with the Court’s Order

requiring service on defendants. However, again, plaintiff failed to provide either proof of service of

the defendants or waivers of service. While plaintiff asserted that “documentary evidence” of

compliance with the court’s order was attached, the attachments consisted of certified mail receipts.

On November 15, 2004, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations

recommending that this action be dismissed based on plaintiff’s failure to file proof of service on

defendants. On November 24, 2004, plaintiff filed objections to the recommendation in which he

asserted that his May 26, 2004 and June 14, 2004 filings constituted proof of service in compliance

with the Court’s April 23, 2004 orders. On November 24, 2004, plaintiff also filed the Declaration

of Yolanda A. Trotter who attested that she had executed service on all defendants via certified mail.

On February 4, 2005, this Court adopted the recommendation and dismissed the action for

failure to obey the April 23, 2004 order and plaintiff’s failure to file a proof of service on defendants.

Case 1:02-cv-05806-LJO -DLB Document 51 Filed 08/29/06 Page 3 of 7
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

District Court

 E. D. California

4

B. Discussion

Federal Rule of Civil procedure 60(a) permits a court to relieve a party from a judgment or

order to correct clerical mistakes:

Clerical mistakes in judgments, orders or other parts of the record and errors therein

arising from oversight or omission may be corrected by the court at any time of its

own initiative or on the motion of any party and after such notice, if any, as the court

orders . . .

Fed. R. Civ.Proc. 60(a). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) permits the court to relieve a party

from a final judgment, order or proceeding based on mistake, inadvertence, surprise or excusable

neglect. Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 60(b)(1). In moving for reconsideration, plaintiff argues that service by

certified mail was sufficient and therefore the court dismissed this case in error.

 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e), service upon an individual from whom a

waiver has not been obtained and filed, other than an infant or an incompetent person, may be

effected in any judicial district of the United States: (1) pursuant to the law of the state in which the

district court is located, or in which service is effected (FRCP 4(e)(1); (2) by delivering a copy of

summons and complaint to defendant personally (FRCP 4(e)(2); (3) by leaving copies at defendant’s

“dwelling house or usual place of abode with some person of suitable age and discretion then

residing therein” (FRCP 4(e)(2)); or (4) by delivering summons and complaint to an “agent

authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process” FRCP 4(e)(2). Service by

certified mail alone is not authorized by Rule 4. 

After numerous extensions of time, plaintiff failed to comply with this court’s orders to effect

service on the named defendants pursuant to Rule 4. While plaintiff apparently forwarded the

summons and complaint to the named defendants via certified mail, this is not sufficient service

under Rule 4. Plaintiff either chose to ignore the federal rules of civil procedure governing service of

process or may have been confused about the prior court order instructing him to send, via US mail,

the waiver of service forms. Given plaintiff’s pro per status, such mistake warrants reconsideration

of the Court’s order dismissing the case, despite his apparent familarity with litigation based on the

number of lawsuits he has pursued.

Case 1:02-cv-05806-LJO -DLB Document 51 Filed 08/29/06 Page 4 of 7
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

District Court

 E. D. California

5

Plaintiff will be given one final opportunity to effect service on defendants. Plaintiff is once

again advised that because he is not proceeding in forma pauperis, it is plaintiff’s responsibility to

effect service of the summons and complaint on defendants in accordancea with the requirements of

the federal rules of civil procedure. The Clerk of the Court will be directed to issue summonses to

plaintiff for purposes of service of process. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4.

Plaintiff shall complete service of process in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

4 within (60) days from the date of service of this order. Plaintiff shall serve a copy of this order on

each defendant together with a summons and a copy of the complaint. The following two sections

contain instructions on how to serve defendants. 

(1) Waiver of Service

Pursuant to Rule 4(d)(2), plaintiff may (but is not required to) notify defendants of the

commencement of this action and request that they waive service of the summons. Fed. R. Civ. P.

4(d)(2). If plaintiff wishes to do this, he must mail each defendant (1) the form entitled “Notice of

Lawsuit and Request for Waiver of Service for Summons,” (2) the form entitled “Waiver of Service

of Summons,” and (3) a copy of the complaint. The documents must be addressed directly to each

defendant (not the Attorney General’s Office) and must be dispatched (mailed) through first-class

mail. The Waiver of Service of Summons form must set forth the date on which the request is sent

and must allow each defendant at least thirty (30) days in which to return the waiver to plaintiff. If

defendants sign and return the waiver forms to plaintiff, plaintiff must then file the forms with the

court. After filing the forms with the court, plaintiff need not take any further steps to serve

defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(4).

(2) Personal Service

If either (1) plaintiff does not wish to request defendants to waive service or (2) one or more

of the defendants fail to return the Waiver of Service of Summons form to plaintiff, plaintiff must

have personal service effected on defendants. Each defendant must be personally served with a

summons and a copy of the complaint, along with a copy of this order. Plaintiff may not effect

Case 1:02-cv-05806-LJO -DLB Document 51 Filed 08/29/06 Page 5 of 7
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

District Court

 E. D. California

6

personal service himself. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c). Service may be effected by any person who is not a

party to this action and who is at least eighteen years old. Id. The court will provide plaintiff with a

copy of Rule 4 along with this order. Plaintiff should review Rule 4(e)(2), which addresses how

personal service may be effected. 

 

A FAILURE TO PROPERLY SERVE DEFENDANTS WILL RESULT IN DISMISSAL OF THIS

CASE. 

C. Conclusion

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The order of dismissal and the judgment, dated February 4, 2005 are VACATED;

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to issue and send plaintiff ten (10) summonses; 

3. The Clerk is further directed to send plaintiff:

a) One (1) copy of the form entitled “Notice of Lawsuit and Request for Waiver

of Service of Summons;” 

b) One (1) copy of the form entitled “Waiver of Service;” 

c) One (1) copy of the form entitled “Consent to Proceed Before United States

Magistrate Judge” with instructions; and 

d) One (1) copy of Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

4. Plaintiff shall serve a copy of this order and a copy of the form “Consent to Proceed

Before United States Magistrate Judge” on defendants at the time of service of the

summons and second amended complaint;

5. Plaintiff shall complete service of process on defendants within sixty (60) days from

the date of service of this order;

5. Plaintiff’s failure to timely complete service of the complaint on the defendants will

result in dismissal of this action. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m); and 

6. This case is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings.

Case 1:02-cv-05806-LJO -DLB Document 51 Filed 08/29/06 Page 6 of 7
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

District Court

 E. D. California

7

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 25, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-05806-LJO -DLB Document 51 Filed 08/29/06 Page 7 of 7