Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01058/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01058-31/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

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 Christopher I. Simmons is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On November 23, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for enforcement of the second order directing 

service by the United States marshal and requests sanctions be imposed on the California Department 

of Corrections and Rehabilitation for non-compliance with the order.

This action is proceeding against Defendants Grissom, Keiley, St. Lucia, Ellstrom and Does 

#1-10 (nurses) for deliberate indifference toward Plaintiff’s “heat risk” condition, in violation of the 

Eighth Amendment, against Defendants Ellstrom, Rients, Sauceda, Akanno and Rufino for deliberate 

indifference arising from the deprivation of Plaintiff’s pain medication, in violation of the Eighth 

Amendment, and against Defendants Rients, Akanno, Sauceda, Rufino and Ellstrom for retaliation, in 

violation of the First Amendment. 

CHRISTOPHER I. SIMMONS,

 Plaintiff,

v.

GRISSOM, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:07-cv-01058-LJO-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

ENFORCEMENT OF SECOND COURT ORDER 

DIRECTING SERVICE BY THE UNITED STATES 

MARSHAL

[ECF No. 136]

Case 1:07-cv-01058-DAD-SAB Document 144 Filed 12/03/15 Page 1 of 2
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

On July 22, 2014, Defendants Akanno, Grissom, St. Lucia and Rients filed an answer to the 

first amended complaint. (ECF No. 89.) Defendant Keiley filed an answer to the complaint on 

February 12, 2015. (ECF No. 114.) 

On March 9, 2015, the Court issued an order directing the Clerk of Court to re-send the Court’s 

second order directing service by the United States marshal for service as to Defendants Leslie A. 

Sauceda, Rufino, and T. Ellstrom. (ECF No. 118.) 

On October 15, 2015, the USM-285 form was returned unexecuted as to Defendant Rufino. 

(ECF No. 134.) Defendants Sauceda and Ellstrom have not yet been served, and the United States 

marshal is still in the process of attempting to serve these Defendants. Because the United States 

marshal is presently in the process of attempting to serve Defendants Sauceda and Ellstrom, and has 

been unsuccessful in serving Defendant Rufino there is no basis to impose sanctions for contempt of a 

court order. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for enforcement of the second order directing service by 

the United States marshal is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 3, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01058-DAD-SAB Document 144 Filed 12/03/15 Page 2 of 2