Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00362/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00362-8/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 42:1981 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

07cv362

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VIRGINIA REEDER,

Plaintiff,

v.

JOHN KNAPIK dba K/MONT

CONSTRUCTION, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 07-CV-362-L(LSP)

ORDER DENYING EX PARTE

APPLICATION FOR FREE

PROCESS OF SUMMONS AND

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

[doc. #59] and DISMISSING

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

UNSERVED DEFENDANTS

On October 15, 2007, plaintiff, appearing pro se, filed an ex parte application for service

of process by publication on the unserved defendants and at the expense of the Court. [doc. #

59].

1. Entitlement to Service of Process at Court Expense

The Court first notes that plaintiff, having paid the $350.00 filing fee, is not proceeding in

forma pauperis and has not sought such status. (See docket no. 1; receipt no. 135392). Under

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1),

any court of the United States may authorize the commencement, prosecution or

defense of any suit, action or proceeding, civil or criminal, or appeal therein,

without prepayment of fees or security therefore, by a person who submits an

affidavit that includes a statement of all assets such [person] possesses, that the

person is unable to pay such fees or give security therefor. . . .

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) (emphasis added). 

/ / /

Case 3:07-cv-00362-L-LSP Document 62 Filed 11/07/07 Page 1 of 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

1 The Court notes that plaintiff may not seek leave to proceed in forma pauperis

after having paid the filing fee. In forma pauperis status permits the filing of the complaint and

service by the United States Marshal without prepayment of those fees but does not provide for 

other litigation costs.

2 Plaintiff has sought and was granted three extensions of time in which to effectuate

service of process. But plaintiff was also warned that “no further extensions of time will be

granted. Any remaining named defendants shall be properly served no later than October 10,

2007. Failure to properly serve a named defendant on or before October 10, 2007 shall result in

dismissal without prejudice of the unserved defendant(s).” (Order filed September 24, 2007

(emphasis omitted) [doc. #57]). Thus, plaintiff cannot effectuate service of process in any

manner absent Court approval which plaintiff has not sought in the present ex parte application. 

3 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e)(1) permits service upon individuals “pursuant

to the law of the state in which the district court is located.”

2 07cv362

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(2) also provides: 

[T]he court may direct that service be effected by a United States marshal, deputy

United States marshal, or other person or officer specially appointed the court for

that purpose. Such an appointment must be made when the plaintiff is

authorized to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 . . . .” 

FED. R. CIV. P. 4(c)(2) (emphasis added). 

Here, because plaintiff neither sought nor obtained in forma pauperis status, plaintiff is

responsible for service of the summons and complaint and for the costs of service.1

Accordingly, plaintiff is not entitled to service of process at Court expense. 

2. Service by Publication

Eventhough plaintiff is not entitled to service of process at Court expense, the Court will

review the law concerning service by publication.2

 

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not expressly provide for service of process by

publication. California, however, does provide for service by publication in its Code of Civil

Procedure § 415.50.3 Section 415.50 provides in relevant part:

(a) A summons may be served by publication if upon affidavit it appears to the

satisfaction of the court in which the action is pending that the party to be served

cannot with reasonable diligence be served in another manner specified in this

article and that either:

(1) A cause of action exists against the party upon whom service is to be made or

he or she is a necessary or proper party to the action.

. . .

(b) The court shall order the summons to be published in a named newspaper,

Case 3:07-cv-00362-L-LSP Document 62 Filed 11/07/07 Page 2 of 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

4 “Publication of summons must be made in a named newspaper of general circulation

(Cal. Gov. Code § 6060), published in this state (Cal. Gov. Code §§ 6004.5, 6020), for the period

prescribed by Section 6064 of the Government Code (once a week for four successive weeks), . . .” 

Judicial Council Comments to Code of Civil Procedure § 415.50. 

3 07cv362

published in this state, that is most likely to give actual notice to the party to be

served. If the party to be served resides or is located out of this state, the court

may also order the summons to be published in a named newspaper outside this

state that is most likely to give actual notice to that party. The order shall direct

that a copy of the summons, the complaint, and the order for publication be

forthwith mailed to the party if his or her address is ascertained before expiration

of the time prescribed for publication of the summons. Except as otherwise

provided by statute, the publication shall be made as provided by Section 6064 of

the Government Code4

 unless the court, in its discretion, orders publication for a

longer period.

CODE CIV. PROC. §415.50(a)(1), (b).

Thus, section 415.50 provides a method for effecting service by publication where a

defendant's whereabouts and his dwelling house or usual place of abode cannot be ascertained

with reasonable diligence, and where no person who may be served on his behalf can be located

with reasonable diligence. 

The term "reasonable diligence" . . . denotes a thorough, systematic investigation

and inquiry conducted in good faith by the party or his agent or attorney. A

number of honest attempts to learn defendant's whereabouts or his address by

inquiry of relatives, friends, and acquaintances, or of his employer, and by

investigation of appropriate city and telephone directories, the voters' register, and

the real and personal property index in the assessor's office, near the defendant's

last known location, are generally sufficient. These are the likely sources of

information, and consequently must be searched before resorting to service by

publication.

Judicial Council Comments to Code of Civil Procedure § 415.50 (citations omitted). 

The Judicial Council Comments also note:

The first step in service by publication is the filing of a prescribed affidavit

showing in detail (1) probative facts indicating a sincere desire and a thorough

search to locate the defendant, including the dates thereof and any attempts to

serve the defendant by another method of service, and . . . (2) that a cause of action

exists against the defendant or that he is a necessary or proper party, . . .

Id.

Although plaintiff has submitted the declaration of Willie James Washington in support

of service by publication, the declaration is insufficient. Plaintiff has not provided detailed facts

Case 3:07-cv-00362-L-LSP Document 62 Filed 11/07/07 Page 3 of 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

5 Attached to Willie James Washington’s declaration are several computer print-outs

suggesting plaintiff did computer-based name searches; however, the website is neither

identified nor authenticated in any manner.

4 07cv362

showing a thorough but unsuccessful search for the defendant.5 Accordingly, even if plaintiff

sought to have service by publication at her own costs, the Court is not satisfied that service by

publication is appropriate on the record presented. 

The Court further notes that plaintiff’s time for serving the remaining unserved

defendants has past and no additional extensions of time have been sought or granted. 

Accordingly, all unserved defendants will be dismissed from this action without prejudice.

3. Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED plaintiff’s ex parte application for free

process of summons and first amended complaint being effectuated on un-served defendants by

order of the Court is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED dismissing the unserved

defendants without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: November 7, 2007

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

COPY TO: 

HON. LEO S. PAPAS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:07-cv-00362-L-LSP Document 62 Filed 11/07/07 Page 4 of 4