Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05077/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05077-18/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LOUIS FRANCIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

H.L. BRYANT, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 04 5077 AWI SMS P 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER ADOPTING

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

ISSUED JUNE 7, 2006. (Doc. 79) 

Louis Frances (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On June 7, 2006, the Magistrate Judge assigned to the case issued Findings and

Recommendations that Defendant Bryant be dismissed from the action. (Doc. 41.) The Court

adopted the Findings and Recommendations on September 27, 2006. (Doc. 64.) Plaintiff is now

seeking reconsideration of the Order Adopting the Findings and Recommendations. 

Motions to reconsider are committed to the discretion of the trial court. Combs v. Nick

Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437, 441 (D.C.Cir. 1987); Rodgers v. Watt, 722 F.2d 456, 460 (9th

Cir. 1983) (en banc). To succeed, a party must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing

Case 1:04-cv-05077-LJO -SMS Document 96 Filed 11/20/06 Page 1 of 3
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

nature to induce the court to reverse its prior decision. See, e.g., Kern-Tulare Water Dist. v. City

of Bakersfield, 634 F.Supp. 656, 665 (E.D.Cal. 1986), aff’d in part and rev’d in part on other

grounds, 828 F.2d 514 (9th Cir. 1987). When filing a motion for reconsideration, Local Rule

78-230(k) requires a party to show the “new or different facts or circumstances claimed to exist

which did not exist or were not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for

the motion.” 

In this case, Plaintiff alleges that the Magistrate Judge erred by overlooking the fact that

“Defendant Bryant has already been served with summons and complaint alleging the identical

facts and causes of action for which Plaintiff plead against Bryant in this matter . . . back in

1999.” (Motion at 2.) 

The Findings and Recommendations detail the efforts made by the U.S. Marshal to serve

Defendant Bryant with the summons and complaint in this action. According to the Findings and

Recommendations, the U.S. Marshal attempted service on Defendant Bryant at least three times,

all of which were unsuccessful. Plaintiff was not able to provide further information to the U.S.

Marshal to assist in having Defendant Bryant served. As such, the Court recommended dismissal

of Defendant Bryant for lack of service. Plaintiff is now asking the Court to reconsider its Order

Adopting the Recommendation on the basis that Defendant Bryant was previously served in an

action filed by Plaintiff in 1999. (Motion at 2.) However, the instant action was instituted on

January 14, 2004. The Court cannot deem Defendant Bryant served simply because he was

served with a Complaint from a prior action that made the same allegations. This would be

insufficient to provide Defendant Bryant with notice of the existence of the instant action. 

Plaintiff asserts that the dismissal of Defendant Bryant is unfair because it is not his fault that

Defendant Bryant cannot be found. (Motion at 2.) It would be equally unfair, however, to keep

Defendant Bryant as a Defendant when he/she has no notice that this action has been filed. 

Finally, Plaintiff alleges that the U.S. Marshal did not make sufficient efforts to find

Defendant Bryant. However, the U.S. Marshal can only attempt to serve the named Defendants

at the place identified by the Plaintiff. It is not the responsibility of the U.S. Marshal to conduct

an investigation into the whereabouts of Defendants named in a Plaintiff’s action. For this reason

Case 1:04-cv-05077-LJO -SMS Document 96 Filed 11/20/06 Page 2 of 3
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

Plaintiff asks this Court to construe his pleading as a Notice of Appeal if it denies his request for 1

reconsideration. The Court declines to do so. Should Plaintiff wish to appeal this Order, he may do so by filing a

separate Notice of Appeal. 

3

the Court sends the Plaintiff the summons to complete and return to the Court. The fact that

Plaintiff has been granted in forma pauperis status only relieves him of the burden of having to

serve the Defendants himself. It does not entitle him to an investigation into the whereabouts of

each Defendant named.

 Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to provide the Court with convincing evidence to

reverse its Order Adopting the Recommendation. As such, the Motion for Reconsideration is

DENIED.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 19, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05077-LJO -SMS Document 96 Filed 11/20/06 Page 3 of 3