Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-05192/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-05192-7/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TIMOTHY BUFORD,

Plaintiff,

v.

WASCO STATE PRISON, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:01-CV-5192-REC-SMS-P 

ORDER PROVIDING DEFENDANT

CARBAHALL WITH OPPORTUNITY TO

SHOW GOOD CAUSE FOR FAILING TO

WAIVE SERVICE

(Doc. 138)

On July 11, 2005, the Court ordered the United States Marshal to serve process upon

defendants Carbahall and Huertas in this case. The Marshal was directed to attempt to secure a

waiver of service before attempting personal service on defendants. If a waiver of service was not

returned by a defendant within sixty days, the Marshal was directed to effect personal service on the

defendant in accordance with the provisions of Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and

28 U.S.C. § 566(c), without prepayment of costs, and to file the return of service with evidence of

any attempt to secure a waiver of service and with evidence of all costs subsequently incurred in

effecting personal service. 

On December 2, 2005, the United States Marshal filed a return of service with a

USM-285 form showing charges of $232.00 for effecting personal service on defendant Carbahall.

The form shows that a waiver of service form was mailed to defendant Carbahall on August 12,

2005, and that no response was received. Defendant Carbahall did not make an appearance in the

case before personal service was executed.

Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in pertinent part, as 

Case 1:01-cv-05192-SMS Document 142 Filed 12/13/05 Page 1 of 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

2

follows: 

An individual, corporation, or association that is subject to service

under subdivision (e), (f), or (h) and that receives notice of an action

in the manner provided in this paragraph has a duty to avoid

unnecessary costs of serving the summons . . . .

If a defendant located within the United States fails to comply with

a request for waiver made by a plaintiff located within the United

States, the court shall impose the costs subsequently incurred in

effecting service on the defendant unless good cause for the failure be

shown.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(2).

It appears that defendant Carbahall was given the opportunity required by Rule

4(d)(2) to waive service, but failed to comply with the request. The Court shall provide defendant

with the opportunity to show good cause for failing to waive service. If defendant either fails to

respond to this order or responds but fails to show good cause, the costs incurred in effecting service

shall be imposed on defendant. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant Carbahall may, within thirty (30) days from the date of this order,

show good cause for failing to waive service; and

2. If defendant either fails to respond to this order or responds but fails to show

good cause, the Court shall impose upon defendant Carbahall the costs

incurred in effecting service.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 12, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:01-cv-05192-SMS Document 142 Filed 12/13/05 Page 2 of 2