Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-02250/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-02250-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ZACHERY DUFFY,

Plaintiff,

v

SAN FRANCISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT

et al,

Defendants.

 /

No C-02-2250 VRW

ORDER

After failing to serve process within the period

established by the court, plaintiff served a summons and complaint

on certain individual officers of the San Francisco Police

Department (SFPD) named as defendants in this action. Those

officers -- Thomas Abrahamson, Jeffrey Barry, Herbert Najarro, A

Freeman and Richard Trujillo (collectively, the “officers”) -- move

to dismiss the complaint pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(5) for

insufficiency of service of process. Doc #64. H Fruchtenicht

(“Fruchtenicht”) also moves to dismiss the complaint under FRCP

4(m). Id. For the reasons that follow, the motion is GRANTED.

Case 3:02-cv-02250-VRW Document 76 Filed 07/26/05 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

On February 25, 2005, the court ordered plaintiff to

serve process on the officers on or before March 18, 2005, after

plaintiff failed to serve process by the previous deadline of

December 3, 2004. As stated in the court’s order, a “failure to

serve any defendant by [March 18, 2005,] will result in the

dismissal without prejudice of the action against that defendant.” 

Doc #42. For reasons discussed in the April 29, 2005 order, the

complaint was dismissed against six other officers after plaintiff

failed to serve any of the officers sufficiently by the March 18,

2005, deadline. The current officers did not join in the previous

motion to dismiss (Doc #50) because “they did not contact the City

Attorney’s Office to obtain representation before the motion was

heard.” Doc #64 at 1:15-16. Plaintiff subsequently served process

on these remaining officers.

Plaintiff essentially reargues the point raised in his

previous opposition (Doc #53), that the substitute service

attempted on March 14, 2005, should suffice since the San Francisco

Police Department’s (SFPD) legal division allegedly assured

plaintiff that it would. As discussed in the April 29, 2005,

order, the flaw in plaintiff’s argument is that the officers did

nothing to make it appear that they authorized SFPD to accept

service on their behalf. See Cal Code Civ Proc § 416.90. 

Moreover, the officers are under no greater duty to accept

insufficient process than any member of the public, despite

plaintiff’s argument to the contrary.

Plaintiff also argues that the deadline for service of

summons is tolled during litigation over the validity of service

and that defendants are estopped from seeking dismissal whenever

Case 3:02-cv-02250-VRW Document 76 Filed 07/26/05 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

they have caused plaintiff to forgo service. Neither argument

persuades. First, litigation over the validity of service came

after the March 18, 2005, deadline; the deadline had already passed

and thus could not be tolled. See Cal Code Civ Proc § 583.240(c). 

Were the court to accept plaintiff’s reading of section 583.240(c),

any deadline for service would be meaningless, as any motion to

dismiss would extend that deadline. Second, defendants did not

cause plaintiff to forgo service; rather, everything in the record

indicates that plaintiff’s procrastination caused the insufficient

service of process. Plaintiff had three years in which to obtain

summonses and serve the officers. Doc #42 at 8-9. On December 3,

2004, the 120-day period that plaintiff had to serve process after

filing the second amended complaint expired pursuant to FRCP 4(m),

but the court gave plaintiff until March 18, 2005, to serve the

officers. Plaintiff could have sought summonses on February 25,

2005, the date of the court’s extension, giving him enough time to

attempt personal service and, failing that, use substitute service. 

Plaintiff, however, waited until March 4, 2005, to seek summonses. 

When plaintiff obtained summonses on March 14, 2005, he still had

the option of filing a motion to extend the March 18, 2005,

deadline, but no such motion was ever filed.

Instead, on March 14, 2005, plaintiff attempted

substitute service, without first attempting personal service as

required and with disregard to the 10-day period before substitute

service becomes effective. See Cal Code Civ Pro § 415.20(b).

Plaintiff now complains that the rules and deadlines established by

this court serve “no purpose except to conform to technical

provisions of the law.” Doc #68 at 1:25-26. Plaintiff bemoans the

Case 3:02-cv-02250-VRW Document 76 Filed 07/26/05 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

4

evasiveness of the officers and the rigidity of the rules,

overlooking the obvious root of his current predicament: His own

cunctation in serving the officers. Plaintiff had three years in

which to serve process on these defendants, and the court granted

additional time besides, and yet plaintiff waited until just before

the deadline to act. Accordingly, the court GRANTS defendants’

motion in regard to Abrahamson, Barry, Najarro, Freeman and

Trujillo.

The court extended for good cause the time for plaintiff

to serve process on Fruchtenicht until April 18, 2005. Doc #49. 

It is uncontested that plaintiff never served process on

Fruchtenicht. Doc #75 at 4:9-11. Accordingly, the court GRANTS

defendants’ motion in regard to Fruchtenicht.

* * *

In sum, defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED. The

officers and Fruchtenicht are DISMISSED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Case 3:02-cv-02250-VRW Document 76 Filed 07/26/05 Page 4 of 4