Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01560/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01560-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

- 1 -

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

AMANDO VILLARREAL HEREDIA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

LAWRENCE, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 17cv1560-LAB (LL)

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO 

SUBSTITUTE DEFENDANTS AND 

FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL

[Dkt. 35];

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff Amando Heredia’s Motion for Substitution of 

Defendant and/or Appointment of Counsel. Dkt. 35. For the reasons below, that motion 

is DENIED and the case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to timely serve 

the defendants. 

1. Failure to Serve

Heredia, an inmate currently housed at the Federal Correctional Institute in 

Safford, Arizona, originally brought this Bivens action pro se in May 2017. The case sat 

idle until January 2018, when the Court instructed Heredia to show cause why the case 

shouldn’t be dismissed for failure to prosecute. Dkt. 11. The Court later discharged the 

Order to Show Cause and instead issued a summons with instructions for Heredia to 

serve each of the Defendants, all of whom appear to be federal officers. Dkt. 12. 

Case 3:17-cv-01560-LAB-LL Document 36 Filed 03/25/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
- 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

Although Plaintiff was proceeding pro se, he was not proceeding in forma pauperis (“IFP”) 

and therefore could not, under normal circumstances, take advantage of service by the 

U.S. Marshals Service (“USMS”). 

Three months after the Court discharged the OSC, Heredia filed a certificate of 

service with the Court indicating that he had mailed the summons and a copy of the 

complaint to Defendants “by and through their Attorney The Federal Bureau of Prisons, 

Western Regional Office Counsel, 7338 Shoreline Dr., Stockton, California 95219.” Dkt. 

17. Noting that this was an improper method of service on a federal officer, the Court 

again instructed the clerk to issue an updated summons and gave Heredia instructions to 

properly serve the defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4. Dkt. 18. Given 

that the case had been pending more than a year by that time, the Court warned that 

failure to timely serve the defendants would lead to dismissal of his case.

Heredia responded that he was unable as an inmate to properly serve any of the 

defendants himself, so he requested that the Court grant him IFP status. Dkt. 21. 

Recognizing the difficulty of his situation, the Court granted Heredia limited-purpose IFP 

status so that he could take advantage of service by the USMS. It cautioned, though, 

that the underlying responsibility to provide the USMS with the information necessary to 

identify and serve the Defendants still rested with Heredia—although the USMS would 

serve the defendants at the addresses listed, neither the USMS nor the Court could assist 

in uncovering the identity or location of the Defendants. See Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 

1415, 1422 (9th Cir.1994), overruled on other grounds by Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 

472, 483–85 (1995). The Court ordered Heredia to complete the required paperwork and 

instructed the USMS to attempt service based on the information he provided. 

After some delay, the USMS returned the summons unexecuted on February 22, 

2019, noting that none of the defendants were still employed at CCA Otay Mesa, the 

location Heredia had identified. Dkts. 28-31. Despite the case being more than 18 

months old, the Court again found good cause to extend the time for service and directed 

the clerk to provide Heredia with renewed forms so that he could give the USMS updated 

Case 3:17-cv-01560-LAB-LL Document 36 Filed 03/25/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
- 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

addresses for the defendants. Dkt. 32. The Court cautioned, as it had before, that his 

failure to provide information sufficient to serve the defendants would lead to dismissal of 

his case. 

Instead of completing the renewed forms so that the USMS could again attempt to 

serve the defendants, Heredia has now filed a motion for miscellaneous relief, arguing

that he is unable to produce addresses for the defendants. Dkt. 35. He suggests that 

because he is an inmate the burden should be on the USMS or the Court to locate the 

defendants. While the situation Heredia finds himself in is not an enviable one, the Court 

has repeatedly informed him that it is his responsibility to “furnish the information 

necessary to identify the defendant[s].” Walker, 14 F.3d at 1422. The USMS does its 

best to effect service as instructed, but it does not have the ability to track down every 

defendant named in a complaint if the information provided by the plaintiff is faulty. 

A “marshal’s failure to effect service is automatically good cause” to extend the 

time for service, but this rule presupposes that the plaintiff intends to provide the USMS 

with information necessary to remedy that failure. Id.; see also Puett v. Blandford, 912 

F.2d 270, 274 (9th Cir. 1990) (“[R]eliance on the U.S. Marshal does not mean that a 

plaintiff may remain silent and do nothing to help effectuate service: [a]t a minimum, a 

plaintiff should request service upon the appropriate defendant and attempt to remedy 

any apparent service defects of which a plaintiff has knowledge.”) (internal citations and 

quotation marks omitted). Where, as here, the case has been pending for nearly two 

years and the plaintiff has made clear that he does not intend to supplement the faulty 

information provided, the Court has no choice but to dismiss the action. See Ponce v. 

Gale, 2014 WL 7381735, at *5 (C.D. Cal. 2014) (“If service cannot be accomplished due 

to the pro se plaintiff's ‘neglect’ or ‘fault,’ including the plaintiff's failure to provide sufficient 

information to identify or locate the defendant, dismissal is appropriate.”). Accordingly, 

this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for failure to timely serve the 

defendants. FRCP 4(m). 

/ / /

Case 3:17-cv-01560-LAB-LL Document 36 Filed 03/25/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
- 4 -

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. Motion to Substitute Defendant

Unable to properly serve the defendants, Heredia also moves to have the USMS 

substituted in as a defendant. In his view, the USMS is liable because it is unable or 

unwilling to locate the defendants. 

The Court granted Heredia limited-purpose IFP status based on his inability to 

properly serve the defendants on his own; this designation, which was a courtesy and not 

a matter of right, was made so that he could take advantage of service by the USMS. 

The marshal’s good-faith attempt to serve the defendants as instructed does not render 

the agency liable for damages when it cannot serve the defendants based on the 

information provided. 

Further, while FRCP 15(a) allows liberal amendment of pleadings, it does not 

require Court to permit amendments where those amendments would be futile. Wheeler 

v. City of Santa Clara, 894 F.3d 1046, 1059 (9th Cir. 2018). Here, because the USMS 

was carrying out its functions as ordered by the Court, it enjoys qualified immunity and 

would not be liable to Heredia. Brooks v. Clark County, 828 F.3d 910, 917-18 (9th Cir. 

2016). Adding the USMS as a defendant would be futile, so the request to substitute 

defendants is DENIED.

3. Motion to Appoint Counsel

Finally, Heredia requests that the Court appoint counsel so that an attorney may 

locate and serve the defendants on his behalf. Counsel in civil cases may be appointed

only in “exceptional circumstances.” Terrell v. Brewer, 935 F.2d 1015, 1017 (9th Cir. 

1991). “A finding of exceptional circumstances requires an evaluation of both the 

likelihood of success on the merits and the ability of the petitioner to articulate his claims 

pro se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved.” Id. (internal citations 

omitted). “Neither of these factors is dispositive and both must be viewed together before 

reaching a decision.” Id. (internal citation omitted). 

No extraordinary circumstances are found here. First, the factual record is not 

sufficiently developed such that the Court could determine whether Heredia is likely to 

Case 3:17-cv-01560-LAB-LL Document 36 Filed 03/25/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
- 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

prevail on the merits. Second, there is nothing extraordinary about an inmate’s inability 

to properly serve defendants in a civil rights action—indeed, this inability to serve is a 

“difficult[y] which any litigant would have proceeding pro se; [it] do[es] not indicate 

exceptional factors.” Wood v. Housewright, 900 F.2d 1332, 1335-36 (9th Cir. 1990). 

Heredia’s request for appointment of counsel is DENIED.

4. Conclusion

For the reasons above, this action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for 

failure to properly serve the defendants. FRCP 4(m). Plaintiff’s requests for substitution

of defendant and appointment of counsel are DENIED. Dkt. 35. The clerk is directed to 

close the case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 22, 2019

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

Chief United States District Judge

Case 3:17-cv-01560-LAB-LL Document 36 Filed 03/25/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5