Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02953/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-02953-4/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAVON LAMAR TORBERT, CDCR

#P-96193

Plaintiff,

v.

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO;

MADSEN; STORTON, BLACK;

MIDECKE; OGSBERT; JOHN DOES,

Defendants. 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 11CV2953 DMS (WMc)

REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION OF

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE

JUDGE RE: DISMISSAL

WITHOUT PREJUDICE OF

DEFENDANT KEAYS UNDER

RULE 4(m) OF THE FEDERAL

RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

I. INTRODUCTION

Javon Lamar Torbert (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner currently incarcerated

and proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on

December 19, 2011. All defendants in this action have appeared except for Dr.

Christie Keays. A process receipt for Dr. Christie Keays (“Defendant”) was returned

unexecuted on May 23, 2013 with no forwarding information available. [ECF No.

161.] During a telephonic status conference on the issue of service on June 7, 2013,

Plaintiff pro se was advised by the Court that Defendant Keays was subject to sua

sponte dismissal without prejudice from this action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). [ECF

No. 162.] 

///

///

11cv2953 DMS (WMc)

Case 3:11-cv-02953-DMS-WMC Document 164 Filed 06/28/13 Page 1 of 5
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

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff alleges excessive force was used against him as a detainee in San

Diego Central Jail on June 20, 2009, when the Defendant Sheriffs shot pepper balls

at Plaintiff through a small opening in his cell door and one ball struck him in his

prosthetic eye. After he fell to the floor, Plaintiff alleges the Defendant Sheriffs

tasered him above the groin area. Shortly thereafter, he was taken to a searching area

outside his cell, slammed to the floor and handcuffed such that the handcuffs cut off

the circulation to his hands and feet. On August 14, 2009, Plaintiff alleges he

underwent eye surgery as a result of the pepper ball that struck his eye. The next day,

Plaintiff alleges he was further injured in San Diego County Jail when the medical

staff removed his bandages. As a result, Plaintiff alleges he needed further corrective

surgery on February 26, 2010. Plaintiff’s complaint identified the medical staff

involved as John Doe defendants to be named after discovery. Plaintiff seeks

compensatory and punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial. [ECF No.

1]

III. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

1. On December 19, 2011, the pro se Plaintiff filed a verified complaint alleging

Cruel and Unusual Punishment under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants. [ECF No.

1.]

2. On March 26, 2012, Plaintiff moved for an extension to amend the pleadings

via letter to the Court. [ECF No. 20.]

3. On April 2, 2012, Plaintiff’s motion was granted, extending the filing

deadline for motions, amendments and pleadings to April 6, 2012. [ECF No. 21.]

4. On April 6, 2012, Plaintiff moved for a second Extension of Time to File

Motion for Leave to Amend. [ECF No. 26.]

5. On April 17, 2012, the extension request was granted and Plaintiff was

ordered to provide the names and addresses for any Doe Defendant no later than May

30, 2012. [ECF No. 31.]

2 11cv2953 DMS (WMc)

Case 3:11-cv-02953-DMS-WMC Document 164 Filed 06/28/13 Page 2 of 5
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

6. On July 3, 2012, Plaintiff moved for a third Extension of Time to Amend

Complaint [ECF No. 74.]

7. On August 22, 2012, Plaintiff’s motion to amend was granted adding K.

Kamoss as a Doe Defendant substitution. [ECF No. 110.]

8. On November 6, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion to amend the complaint to add

Dr. Christie Keays as a Doe Defendant substitution. [ECF No. 140.]

9. On November 13, 2012, the Court granted Plaintiff’s motion directing

Defendant to provide Plaintiff with the last known contact information for Dr. Keays.

[ECF No. 142].

10. On November 30, 2012, January 14, 2013, and February 14, 2013, the Court

held telephonic status conferences regarding the status of service on Dr. Keays. [ECF

Nos. 146, 149 and 151, respectively.] 

11. On March 11, 2013, the Court issued an order directing the U.S. Marshal

to assist Plaintiff with service of the complaint due to his difficulty achieving service

on Dr. Keays. [ECF No. 153.]

12. On May 13, 2013, the Court held a telephonic status conference regarding

service on Dr. Keays. [ECF No. 158.]

13. On May 23, 2013, a process receipt was returned unexecuted for Dr. Keays

and no forwarding information was available. [ECF No. 161.]

14. June 7, 2013, the Court held a telephonic status conference regarding

service and discussed the unexecuted return receipt for Dr. Keays. [ECF No. 162.] 

The Court also advised Plaintiff that Dr. Keays was subject to sua sponte dismissal.

IV. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) states: “If 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. But if the plaintiff

shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an

3 11cv2953 DMS (WMc)

Case 3:11-cv-02953-DMS-WMC Document 164 Filed 06/28/13 Page 3 of 5
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

appropriate period. This subdivision (m) does not apply to service in a foreign

country under Rule 4(f) or 4(j)(1).”

V. DISCUSSION

The pro se Plaintiff is currently incarcerated and is filing in forma pauperis.

[No. 4]. Plaintiff’s incarceration makes it difficult for him to gather information

because of restrictions on time and computer access. The Court, however, granted

Plaintiff an extension of more than six months to identify Dr. Keays and to serve

her in a timely manner.

More than 120 days have passed since Plaintiff filed his initial complaint. 

Plaintiff was granted additional time by the Court to identify Dr. Keays and

complete the necessary forms for the United States Marshal Service to serve

process on Defendant. Defendant could not be located and Plaintiff has not made

the Court aware of any current locations or addresses for Dr. Keays. 

The Plaintiff has not shown good cause for an additional extension of the

deadline to serve Dr. Keays as required under Fed. R. Civ. 4(m). It is therefore

RECOMMENDED the Court dismiss Defendant Christie Keays WITHOUT

PREJUDICE from the action for failure to be timely served. 

VI. RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER THEREON

For the reasons discussed above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that

the Court issue an order DISMISSING WITHOUT PREJUDICE Defendant Dr.

Christie Keays for Plaintiff’s failure to timely serve this Defendant or show good

cause for the failure to serve this Defendant under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). 

IT IS ORDERED that no later than July 19, 2013, any party to this action

my file written objections with the Court and serve a copy on all parties. The

document should be captioned “Objections to Report and recommendation.”

///

///

///

4 11cv2953 DMS (WMc)

Case 3:11-cv-02953-DMS-WMC Document 164 Filed 06/28/13 Page 4 of 5
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

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that any reply to the objections shall be filed

with the Court and served on all parties no later than August 2, 2013. The parties

are advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the

right to raise those objections on appeal of the Court’s Order. See Turner v.

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153, 1156

(9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 28, 2013

Hon. William McCurine, Jr.

U.S. Magistrate Judge, U.S. District Court

5 11cv2953 DMS (WMc)

Case 3:11-cv-02953-DMS-WMC Document 164 Filed 06/28/13 Page 5 of 5