Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00484/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00484-17/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Barry Louis Lamon is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

I.

BACKGROUND

This action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s first amended complaint against Defendants Magvas, 

Talisman, Barda, Cohen, and Osborne for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment. 

On April 3, 2014, Defendants Talisman, Osborne, and Magvas, filed an answer to the amended 

complaint. 

On April 4, 2014, Defendant Barda was dismissed from the action, without prejudice, pursuant 

to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to effectuate service of process. 

BARRY LOUIS LAMON,

 Plaintiff,

v.

MAURICE JUNIOUS, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:09-cv-00484-AWI-SAB (PC)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

REGARDING DEFENDANT COHEN’S MOTION 

TO DISMISS OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, 

QUASH SERVICE OF THE SUMMONS AND 

AMENDED COMPLAINT

[ECF No. 103]

Case 1:09-cv-00484-AWI-SAB Document 109 Filed 11/12/14 Page 1 of 5
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

27

28

Now pending before the Court is Defendant Cohen’s motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, 

quash service of the summons and complaint, by and through special appearance by the Office of the 

Attorney General. 

Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendant Cohen’s motion on October 1, 2014, and Defendant 

filed a reply on October 7, 2014. 

II.

DISCUSSION

In the instant case, Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 4.) On March 5, 2013, 

the Court authorized service by the Marshal pursuant to Rule 4(d). (ECF No. 39.) 

On September 15, 2014, the United States Marshal returned the USM-285 form for Defendant 

Doctor Eric Cohen, which indicates that personal serve was effectuated on Alison DeLong, Litigation 

Coordinator, on September 5, 2014. 

Defendant Cohen, by way of special appearance by the Office of the Attorney General, moves 

to dismiss the claims against him or, in the alternative quash the service of the summons and amended 

complaint on the ground that service was defective, and personal jurisdiction is lacking. See Fed. R.

Civ. P. 12(b)(5). 

Service of an individual within a judicial district of the United States may be effected by 

“delivering a copy of [the summons and complaint] to an agent authorized by appointment of law to 

receive service of process.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(2)(C). The “agent” referred to in this rule is not just

an employee or business agent of some kind, but instead must be an agent specifically designated to 

receive service of process. See Gerritsen v. Escobar Y Cordova, 721 F.Supp. 253, 256 (C.D. Cal. 

1988). 

If a defendant is not served within 120 days after the complaint is filed, the court must dismiss 

the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified 

time. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. If a plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time

for service for an appropriate period. Id. An incarcerated pro se plaintiff proceeding in forma 

pauperis is entitled to rely on the Marshal for service of the summons and complaint. Puett v. 

Blandford, 912 F.2d 270, 275 (9th Cir. 1990). If a plaintiff has provided the necessary information to 

Case 1:09-cv-00484-AWI-SAB Document 109 Filed 11/12/14 Page 2 of 5
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

help effectuate serve, he should not be penalized by having his or her action dismissed for failure to 

effective service where the Marshal or the court clerk has failed to perform the duties required under 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(c) and Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. 

In this instance, Ms. DeLong declares under penalty of perjury that she has not been 

specifically designated to accept service of process on behalf of Dr. Cohen. (ECF No. 103, DeLong 

Decl. ¶ 3.) Ms. DeLong specifically declares that “[o]n September 5, 2014, [she] mistakenly accepted 

personal service on behalf of Dr. Eric Cohen, who is named as a defendant in this lawsuit. At the time 

[she] accepted service, [she] believed the named defendant to be a former Atascadero State Hospital 

employee with the same surname.” (Id. at ¶ 2.) 

“Once service is challenged, plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing that service was valid 

under Rule 4.” Brockmeyer v. May, 383 F.3d 798, 801 (9th Cir. 2004). While “Rule 4 is a flexible 

rule that should be liberally construed so long as a party receives sufficient notice of the complaint,” 

United Food & Commercial Workers Union v. Alpha Beta Co., 736 F.2d 1371, 1382 (9th Cir. 1984), 

there must still be “substantial compliance” with Rule 4; otherwise, “neither actual notice nor simply 

naming the defendant in the complaint will provide personal jurisdiction.” Direct Mail Specialists, 

Inc. v. Eclat Computerized Technologies, Inc., 840 F.2d 685, 688 (9th Cir. 1988) (quoting Benny v. 

Pipes, 799 F.2d 489, 492 (9th Cir. 1986). If the plaintiff is unable to satisfy his burden, the Court has 

the discretion to either dismiss the action or retain the action and quash the service of process. Stevens 

v. Sec. Pac. Nat’l Bank, 538 F.2d 1387, 1389 (9th Cir. 1976). 

In his opposition, Plaintiff contends that Dr. Cohen should not be dismissed because Plaintiff is 

proceeding in forma pauepris and he cannot reasonably be expected to locate this Defendant, outside 

in society, if the Office of the Attorney General cannot find him. Plaintiff argues that the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) and the Office of the Attorney General have 

not been unable to locate Dr. Cohen. Plaintiff therefore reasons that CDCR and the Office of the 

Attorney General “should be held responsible for locating their former employee for service of 

summons and complaint in this action.” (ECF NO. 105, Opp’n at 4.) 

To the extent Plaintiff argues that the CDCR and/or the Office of the Attorney General are 

legally responsible for locating parties that he has sued, Plaintiff’s argument is without merit. As 

Case 1:09-cv-00484-AWI-SAB Document 109 Filed 11/12/14 Page 3 of 5
4

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

stated herein, it is Plaintiff’s responsibility to provide sufficient details to locate and identify a party to 

be served with the summons and complaint. See Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 

1994), abrogated on other grounds by Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995); see also Pierce v. 

Woodford, 416 Fed. App’x 660, 661 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding it is not abuse of discretion to dismiss 

action without prejudice for prisoner’s failure to provide U.S. Marshal with necessary information to 

effectuate service). This authority holds true even in instances, such as here, where Plaintiff is 

proceeding in forma pauperis and service is ordered and effectuated by the U.S. Marshal. Walker v. 

Sumner, 14 F.3d at 1422. Therefore, although Plaintiff is incarcerated and is proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis, he is not relieved of the burden of providing the Marshal with sufficient information 

to serve each named Defendant. See, e.g., King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) (“Pro se 

litigants must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.”), overruled on other 

grounds by Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012). Neither the Court nor the Marshal 

is under an obligation to investigate and locate an unserved defendant. Boulware v. Ervin, No. CV05-05165, 2010 WL 5110445 at *1 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 8, 2010). 

Although service on Defendant Cohen was defective because Ms. DeLong was not authorized 

to accept service on behalf of Defendant Dr. Cohen, there is a reasonable prospect that Defendant 

Cohen can be served properly. “‘Generally service will be quashed in those cases in which there is a 

reasonable prospect that the plaintiff will be able to serve the defendant properly.’” Crayton v. 

Rochester Medical Corp., No. 1:07-CV-01318-OWW-GSA, 2008 WL 3367604, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 

8, 2008) (quoting Wishart v. Agents for Int’l Monetary Fund I.R.S., No. C-95-20178 SW, 1995 WL 

494586, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 14, 1995). The Court finds Plaintiff should be granted an opportunity 

to provide additional information for service of Dr. Cohen by and through the registry which 

employed him. Therefore, the Court finds that dismissal of the claims against Dr. Cohen are not 

justified, at this juncture, and the Court shall instead recommend to quash the insufficient service as to 

Defendant Dr. Cohen. 

///

///

///

Case 1:09-cv-00484-AWI-SAB Document 109 Filed 11/12/14 Page 4 of 5
5

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

IV.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that:

1. Defendants’ motion to quash service of the summons and amended complaint on 

Defendant Doctor Cohen be GRANTED; and

2. Plaintiff be given the opportunity, following the order resolving the instant 

recommendation, to provide further information for service of the summons and 

complaint on Defendant Doctor Cohen.

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. ' 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30) days

after being served with these Findings and Recommendations, the parties may file written objections 

with the Court. The document should be captioned AObjections to Magistrate Judge=s Findings and 

Recommendations.@ The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time 

may waive the right to appeal the District Court=s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 

1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 12, 2014 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:09-cv-00484-AWI-SAB Document 109 Filed 11/12/14 Page 5 of 5