Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_11-cv-05021/USCOURTS-cand-3_11-cv-05021-27/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

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GREGORY M. HAYNES,

Plaintiff,

v.

CHRISTIAN HANSON, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 11-cv-05021-JST 

ORDER 1) FINDING THAT DANIEL 

MAHONEY IS NOT A DEFENDANT 

AND 2) DISMISSING CLAIMS 

AGAINST MANUEL ALMARAZ

PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF 

CIVIL PROCEDURE 4(M)

Re: ECF No. 136

This case was filed on October 11, 2011. The Court previously issued an order to show 

cause why Daniel Mahoney and Manuel Almaraz should not be dismissed pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), ECF No. 136, which instructs that instructs that “[i]f a defendant is 

not served within 120 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on motion or on its own after 

notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order 

that service be made within a specified time.” Plaintiff Gregory Haynes has submitted a response 

to the Court’s order to show cause. ECF No. 137. 

I. Daniel Mahoney is Not a Defendant In this Action

The initial complaint in this matter named a “Daniel Murphy,” but did not name Daniel 

Mahoney. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff subsequently sought to bring a claim against Daniel Mahoney in 

his first amended complaint, referring to him as “Defendant Daniel Mahoney, previously sued as 

Daniel Murphy.” ECF No. 56. The Court struck the allegations against Daniel Mahoney, finding 

that Plaintiff had failed to acquire “the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave” prior 

to adding Mahoney to his complaint. ECF No. 85 at 8. Plaintiff subsequently filed a motion for 

leave to amend his complaint “to change the name defendant Daniel Murphy his correct name, 

Case 3:11-cv-05021-JST Document 143 Filed 02/02/15 Page 1 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Daniel Mahoney.” ECF No. 101 at 2. The Court denied Plaintiff’s motion to amend the 

complaint to add Mahoney, concluding that Plaintiff had not presented a basis for the delay, that 

Mahoney would be prejudiced, and that amendment would be futile. ECF No. 114. Therefore, 

Mahoney is not a party to this action, as the claims against him have been stricken from the 

operative complaint and the Court has denied Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend the complaint

to add claims against him.

1

II. Manuel Almaraz Has Not Been Served

The Court’s order to show cause recounted the history of Plaintiff’s attempts to serve 

Almaraz. See ECF No. 136. Plaintiff, in response to the order to show cause, claims that the 

Court should conclude that service on Almaraz was effective because the summons was delivered 

to the same address at which Plaintiff delivered a subpoena to Almaraz in another litigation. See

ECF No. 138-1 at 1. But Almaraz did not respond to the subpoena in that litigation. See In re: 

Haynes, 10-cv-04642-DLJ-RMW-EJD, ECF No. 105 at 214. Therefore, Plaintiff’s other attempt 

to serve Almaraz at this address does not lend any further support to his claim that Almaraz lives 

at this address. Furthermore, as recounted in this Court’s prior order, the Proof of Service in this 

litigation did not correctly name Defendant Manuel Almaraz, but instead named “‘Doe’ Almarz.” 

ECF No. 138-1 at 2. 

Because the record does not establish that Almaraz resides at the address at which the 

summons was delivered, the summons misspelled the name of Almaraz and gave his first name as 

“Doe,” and Almaraz has not appeared in this litigation, the Court concludes that service was not 

effective as to Manuel Almaraz. Plaintiff has not attempted to show, and has not shown, good 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

 

1

“Daniel Murphy” has been terminated as a party in this action, as Plaintiff has admitted that all 

references to a “Daniel Murphy” in the initial complaint were intended as references to Daniel 

Mahoney. 

Case 3:11-cv-05021-JST Document 143 Filed 02/02/15 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

cause for his failure to serve Almaraz. The Court accordingly dismisses the action as to defendant 

Almaraz without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 2, 2015

______________________________________

JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-05021-JST Document 143 Filed 02/02/15 Page 3 of 3