Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00633/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-00633-6/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 

Ken I. Karan, California State Bar No. 204843

kkaran.law@gmail.com 

LAW OFFICE OF KEN I. KARAN 

2907 Shelter Island Drive, Ste. 105-215 

San Diego, CA 92106 

(760) 420-5488 

Fax (866) 841-5420 

Attorney for Plaintiff James Mozingo 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

FRESNO DIVISION 

JAMES MOZINGO, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS AND 

REHABILITATION; LADD, lieutenant; 

C. LOWERY, correctional officer; I. 

SINGH, M.D.; BARBARA 

WOODWARD, PA; K. PHANH, PA; 

and DOES 1 through 47, inclusive, 

Defendants.

CASE NO.: 1:15-cv-00633 LJO BAM 

STIPULATION OF THE PARTIES 

REGARDING SERVICE OF THE 

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; 

ORDER 

Complaint Filed: April 22, 2015 

Hearing Date: February 17, 2016 

Time: 8:00 a.m. 

Location: CTRM #8 

Judge: Hon. Barbara A. 

McAuliffe 

U.S. Magistrate Judge 

The appearing parties herein, by and through counsel, stipulate as follows: 

1. The Court ordered service of the Second Amended Complaint by U.S. Marshal’s 

Service on Defendants I. Singh, M.D.; Barbara Woodward, PA; K. Phana, PA. 

2. The Court explicitly exempted Defendants Ladd and Lowery from filing another 

answer to the pleadings having already appeared by answer to the First Amended 

Complaint. (ECF 22, 4:15.) The Court’s order did not address service on Defendant 

Case 1:15-cv-00633-LJO-BAM Document 43 Filed 01/29/16 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 

27 

28 

CDCR which also appeared in the answer. (ECF 15.) 

3. Counsel for Defendants has authority to accept service on behalf of CDCR. 

4. Counsel for Defendants acted on that authority by accepting service without formal 

process, and by filing an answer to the First Amended Complaint on behalf of CDCR. 

5. To avoid confusion, the parties stipulate that service of the Second Amended 

Complaint on CDCR has been completed. Counsel for CDCR intends to file an answer 

to the Second Amended Complaint. 

6. The parties agree that the Court’s jurisdiction over Defendant CDCR in this matter 

is perfected. 

7. This stipulation does not address the status of service of the Second Amended 

Complaint on Defendant Phana (Phanh) who has not appeared. 

 So stipulated. 

Date: January 18, 2016 Signed: /s/ Ken I. Karan 

Ken I. Karan, Esq. 

Attorney for Plaintiff James 

Mozingo 

Date: January 18, 2016 Signed: /s/ R. Lawrence Bragg 

R. Lawrence Bragg, Esq. 

Attorney for Defendants CDCR, 

Ladd, Lowery, I. Singh, M.D.; 

Barbara Woodward, PA 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 29, 2016 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:15-cv-00633-LJO-BAM Document 43 Filed 01/29/16 Page 2 of 2