Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00528/USCOURTS-caed-2_10-cv-00528-4/pdf.json

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

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM J. WHITSITT,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-10-0528 JAM DAD PS

v.

ORDER

CITY OF TRACY, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, William Whitsitt, is proceeding in this action pro se and in forma

pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. The case was referred to the undersigned in accordance

with Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

On August 9, 2011, plaintiff was ordered to submit to the United States Marshal

within thirty days a properly completed USM-285 form, a properly completed summons form,

and the number of copies of the endorsed complaint and of the August 9, 2011 order required by

the United States Marshal. (Order August 9, 2011 (Doc. No. 9.) Plaintiff was also ordered to

file with this court a declaration stating the date on which he submitted the required documents to

the United States Marshal within ten days after submitting the required documents.

After the forty-day period for plaintiff’s action expired without a response from

plaintiff, the undersigned issued findings and recommendations on October 11, 2011,

1

Case 2:10-cv-00528-JAM-AC Document 13 Filed 11/02/11 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

recommending that this action be dismissed without prejudice. On October 18, 2011, plaintiff

filed objections to those findings and recommendations, in which plaintiff stated that he had

attempted to comply with the court’s August 9, 2011 order, but that the United States Marshal

returned plaintiff’s submission for failure to include a copy of the court’s August 9, 2011 order. 

Plaintiff explained that he was away from home and did not receive the correspondence from the

Marshal’s Office until October 7, 2011. Plaintiff re-submitted the necessary documents to the

Marshal’s Office on October 11, 2011. Plaintiff’s objections are signed by plaintiff “under the

penalty of law.” (Doc. No. 11 at 4.) 1

Good cause appearing, the undersigned will vacate the October 11, 2011 findings

and recommendations. Plaintiff is cautioned however that this is the second time that he has

filed documents with the court containing clearly inaccurate factual assertions. On July 22, 2011

plaintiff filed a document asking the Clerk of the Court to send documents to the Marshal’s

Office for plaintiff because he had not been given the address of the Marshal’s Office. (Doc. No.

8.) On August 9, 2011, the court notified plaintiff that he had in fact been provided with the

address and phone number of the United States Marshal on two prior occasions. (Doc. No. 9.)

Now, in his October 18, 2011 objections, plaintiff states:

I was not sent any type of instructions of what needed to be sent to

the U.S. Marshal’s Office with summons and complaint, except

that I must serve them a copy of the summons and complaint. That

is all my instructions stated to me.

(October 18, 2011 Objection (Doc. No. 11) at 2.) Plaintiff was, however, ordered on three prior

occasions to submit to the United States Marshal a properly completed USM-285 form, a

properly completed summons form, and the number of copies of the endorsed complaint and of

the court’s order required by the United States Marshal. (See May 17, 2011 Order (Doc. No. 3);

June 20, 2011 Order (Doc. No. 7); August 9, 2011 (Doc. No. 9)). Plaintiff cannot continue to

 Plaintiff does not address why he failed to file his declaration with this court stating the 1

date on which he submitted the required documents to the United States Marshal.

2

Case 2:10-cv-00528-JAM-AC Document 13 Filed 11/02/11 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

submit to this court documents with factually inaccurate assertions. In this regard, plaintiff is

advised that his failure to comply with the court’s rules or with any order of the court may be

grounds for imposition by the court of any and all sanctions authorized by statute or rule or

within the inherent power of the court. See Local Rule 110.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed October 11, 2011 (Doc. No. 10) are

vacated; and

2. Within twenty-one (21) days of this order, plaintiff shall file with this court a

declaration stating the date on which he submitted the required documents for service of process

to the United States Marshal. Failure to file the declaration in a timely manner may result in an

order imposing appropriate sanctions.

DATED: November 1, 2011.

DAD:6

Ddad1\orders.pro se\whitsitt0528.vac

3

Case 2:10-cv-00528-JAM-AC Document 13 Filed 11/02/11 Page 3 of 3