Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04903/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04903-10/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MUWAKKIL AL-HIZBULLAHI,

a.k.a. TIM TYSON,

Plaintiff,

 v.

R.G. BLEISNER, et al.,

Defendants. ______________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C 04-4903 MMC (PR) 

ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF

TIME TO OPPOSE MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT; DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S OCTOBER 22, 2009 RULE

7-9(a) MOTION; GRANTING

PLAINTIFF’S JANUARY 7, 2010 RULE 7-

9(a) MOTION; DIRECTING

DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL TO RESPOND

TO MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

(Docket Nos. 54, 55, 59, 60, 62)

More than five years ago, on November 11, 2004, plaintiff, a California prisoner

currently incarcerated at Represa State Prison and proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Almost two years ago, the Court, by order

filed April 23, 2008, reviewed the allegations in the second amended complaint (“SAC”) and

ordered plaintiff, who is not proceeding in forma pauperis and has paid the filing fee, either

to provide proof that he has served those defendants against whom cognizable claims for

relief have been found, or to show cause why such defendants should not be dismissed from

this action without prejudice. Most recently, the Court, by order filed October 2, 2009,

denied plaintiff’s motion to compel prison officials at Represa State Prison to prove they

mailed plaintiff’s waiver of service forms, and dismissed from the action all unserved

Case 3:04-cv-04903-MMC Document 63 Filed 02/03/10 Page 1 of 9
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

defendants. By that same order, the Court directed defendant J. Woodford, the only

defendant who waived service, to file a dispositive motion.

Now pending before the Court are plaintiff’s (1) two motions for an extension of time

to file opposition to Woodford’s motion for summary judgment and (2) two motions for

leave to file a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s order denying the motion to compel

and dismissing the unserved defendants

A. Motions for Extension of Time

On November 12, 2009, Woodford filed a motion for summary judgment. On

December 7 and 15, 2009, respectively, plaintiff filed identical motions for an extension of

time to file opposition thereto. (Docket Nos. 59 & 60.) Good cause appearing, plaintiff’s

motions will be granted. Plaintiff shall file his opposition no later than March 8, 2010. As

plaintiff has now been provided almost four months in which to oppose Woodford’s motion,

no further extensions of time will be granted absent a showing of exceptional circumstances.

Defendant shall file a reply no later than fourteen (14) days after plaintiff’s opposition is

filed. 

B. Motions for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration

On October 22, 2009 and January 7, 2010, respectively, plaintiff filed motions for

leave to file, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-9(a), a motion for reconsideration of the Court’s

October 2, 2009 order denying plaintiff’s motion to compel and dismissing all defendants

other than Woodford. (Docket Nos. 54, 55 & 62.) Before addressing plaintiff’s motions, the

Court summarizes below the procedural background relevant thereto.

1. Background

As noted, the Court, by ordered filed April 23, 2008, reviewed the allegations in the

SAC and ordered plaintiff, who is not proceeding in forma pauperis and has paid the filing

fee, either to provide proof that he has served those defendants against whom cognizable

claims for relief have been found, or to show cause why such defendants should not be

dismissed from this action without prejudice. After having been granted several extensions

of time to perfect service, plaintiff, on January 21, 2009, filed a motion by which he sought

Case 3:04-cv-04903-MMC Document 63 Filed 02/03/10 Page 2 of 9
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

3

an order finding each defendant had been properly served, or, alternatively, entry of

judgment in favor of plaintiff, on the ground defendants and their attorney, Deputy Attorney

General Michael Quinn, were evading service. Specifically, plaintiff claimed he sent waiverof- service forms to the named defendants and Quinn in accordance with Rule 4(d) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and that such defendants had improperly refused to waive

service. 

Following full briefing by the parties, the Court, by order filed June 29, 2009, denied

plaintiff’s motion, finding defendants had neither waived nor evaded service. (Docket No.

49.) In so doing, the Court explained in detail the requirements for perfecting service in

accordance with Rule 4(d) and also informed plaintiff that, should defendants fail to waive

service, he must timely serve defendants by other means, or his claims as to each unserved

defendant would be subject to dismissal. (Id. at 2:19-3:19.) By that same order, the Court

denied defendants’ motion to dismiss the SAC for insufficient service of process, and granted

plaintiff one final extension of time to serve defendants. In granting the extension, the Court

informed plaintiff that if, by August 15, 2009, he had failed to provide the Court with proof

that service had been accomplished, the SAC would be dismissed without prejudice as to all

unserved defendants. (Id. at 8:20-27.)

On August 12, 2009, three days before the above-referenced deadline, plaintiff filed a

“Motion to Compel,” in which plaintiff stated he was of the belief that correctional officials

at Represa State Prison did not send out the envelopes plaintiff had prepared for each of

forty-six defendants, and by which he requested such defendants waive service. (Docket No.

51.) According to plaintiff, the prison’s outgoing mail log for plaintiff’s July 2009 mail

showed that only six envelopes had been sent out. Plaintiff stated he had filed an

administrative appeal regarding the matter, but provided no information regarding any

response. Plaintiff also stated that when he realized only some of his service documents had

been sent, he mailed the summonses and complaints to members of his family, with a request

that they hire the United States Marshal to effectuate service subject to later reimbursement

by plaintiff’s family. 

Case 3:04-cv-04903-MMC Document 63 Filed 02/03/10 Page 3 of 9
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

No proof of service with respect to any defendant was filed by August 15, 2009. On

August 24, 2009, however, a Waiver of Service of Summons form was filed by defendant

Woodford, whom plaintiff identifies as a former Director of the California Department of

Corrections and Rehabilitation.

The Court, by order filed October 2, 2009, denied plaintiff’s motion to compel mail

room staff at Represa State Prison either to provide proof that all forty-six of the defendants

were “properly served” or, alternatively, to tell plaintiff what happened to his legal mail. 

Specifically, the Court ruled as follows: 

At the outset, the Court notes that correctional officers at Represa State Prison

are not defendants to this action and, consequently, are neither subject to the

Court’s jurisdiction nor legally obligated to appear in this matter. Additionally,

there is no indication from plaintiff’s motion that he has completed the

administrative appeals process with respect to his request for information from

Represa mail room staff. The preferred procedure for the resolution of any

internal prison matter is through the administrative appeals process;

consequently, plaintiff must first exhaust that avenue of relief before asking for

court intervention. Further, as was explained to plaintiff in the Court’s June 29,

2009 order, service on a defendant is deemed accomplished under Rule 4(d)

only when a waiver of service form has been returned to the court. (Order at

3:8-10, 4:18-23.) Thus, even if Represa mail room staff did send the waiver of

service forms as plaintiff requested, the Court, absent the return of the

completed waiver of service forms, would not find defendants had been

properly served. Finally, as also was explained to plaintiff in the Court’s

previous order, if plaintiff was of the belief that waiver of service would not be

accomplished within the requisite period, he was responsible for ensuring

defendants were timely served by other means. (Order at 3:14-16.)

In sum, no waiver of service form or any other proof of service has been filed

with respect to any defendant other than J. Woodford. Accordingly, more than

seventeen months having elapsed since plaintiff was first ordered to serve all

defendants, and the most recent service deadline of August 15, 2009 having

passed, all defendants other than J. Woodford will be dismissed as defendants

to this action. 

(Docket No. 53 at 3:3-23.)

2. Standard of Review

The Local Rules of the Northern District of California allow for the filing of motions

for reconsideration of interlocutory orders entered prior to the entry of final judgment. See

Civil L.R. 7-9. No such pre-judgment motion for reconsideration may be brought, however,

without leave of court. Civil L.R. 7-9(a).

To proceed on a motion for reconsideration, the moving party must show at least one

Case 3:04-cv-04903-MMC Document 63 Filed 02/03/10 Page 4 of 9
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

of the following: (1) that at the time of the motion for leave, a material difference in fact or

law exists from that which was presented to the Court before entry of the interlocutory order

for which reconsideration is sought, and that such fact or law was not known by such party at

the time of the interlocutory order, despite such party’s exercise of reasonable diligence; 

(2) the emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after the time of such

interlocutory order; or (3) a manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or

dispositive legal arguments which were presented to the Court before such interlocutory

order. Civil L.R. 7-9(b)(1)-(3). 

3. Plaintiff’s Motion Filed October 22, 2009

Plaintiff filed his first Rule 7-9(a) motion on October 22, 2009. (Docket No. 54.) 

Attached to the motion is plaintiff’s proposed motion for reconsideration (Docket No.55), in

which he sets forth the reasons he asserts warrant reconsideration of the Court’s October 2,

2009 order. (Docket No. 53.) In particular, plaintiff argues he is entitled to file a motion for

reconsideration because (1) the Court never made a factual determination as to whether

Represa State Prison officials had mailed to defendants all forty-six envelopes requesting

they waive service; (2) the Court erred by not finding defendants had been served, because,

irrespective of whether they waived service, they had received notice of the lawsuit; (3) the

Court erred by denying plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis for the purpose of

effectuating service by the United States Marshal pursuant to Rule 4(c); (4) the Court erred

by not appointing counsel for plaintiff based on the complexity of the rules of service; and

(5) the Court erred by denying plaintiff’s motion to compel on the ground that Represa State

Prison officials are not defendants to the instant action. As set forth below, the Court finds

plaintiff, in his October 22, 2009 motion, has failed to make the showing required for leave

to file a motion for reconsideration. 

At the outset, the Court notes that plaintiff’s October 22, 2009 motion implicates

rulings beyond those made in the Court’s October 2, 2009 order; specifically, plaintiff seeks

reconsideration of rulings made by the Court in other orders as well. Moreover, plaintiff’s

motion sets forth no material difference in law or fact from that presented prior to the

Case 3:04-cv-04903-MMC Document 63 Filed 02/03/10 Page 5 of 9
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

issuance of any of the rulings to which plaintiff now objects. Similarly, the motion fails to

identify any new material facts that have emerged or a change of law that has occurred after

the time of such rulings, nor has plaintiff shown that the Court failed to consider either

material facts or dispositive legal arguments that were presented to the Court before such

rulings were made. Rather, the facts and law presented by plaintiff in his October 22, 2009

Rule 7-9(a) motion are the same facts and law as were considered by the Court when it ruled

upon the matters for which plaintiff seeks reconsideration. In its prior orders, the Court

explained in detail: (1) the reasons why the Court did not grant plaintiff’s motion to compel

or direct prison officials who are not defendants to this action to respond to plaintiff’s

assertions of improper conduct (Docket No. 53); (2) the reasons why plaintiff is not entitled

to in forma pauperis status and service by the United States Marshal (Docket No. 22); (3) the

reasons why no defendant can be deemed served pursuant to Rule 4(d) unless and until a

waiver of service has been returned by the defendant (Docket No. 49); and (4) why a

defendant is not responsible for costs of service for failing to waive service, unless and until

such defendant is in fact served by other means. (Id.) 

Further, plaintiff’s difficulties in understanding service procedures do not rise to the

level of “exceptional circumstances” that would warrant the appointment of counsel in this

matter. See Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1236 (9th Cir. 1984) (holding decision to

request counsel to represent indigent litigant under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 is within “the sound

discretion of the trial court and is granted only in exceptional circumstances”). In any given

case, a finding of “exceptional circumstances” requires an evaluation both of the likelihood

of the plaintiff’s success on the merits and of the plaintiff’s ability to articulate his claims pro

se in light of the complexity of the legal issues involved. Wilborn v. Escalderon, 789 F.2d

1328, 1331 (9th Cir. 1986). The procedural difficulties a pro se litigant faces in prosecuting

a civil action “do[ ] not necessarily qualify the issues involved as ‘complex.’” See id. 

Here, plaintiff has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits and he has

articulated his claims more than adequately. Although plaintiff has found it necessary to

educate himself about service procedures, his having to do so does not distinguish him from

Case 3:04-cv-04903-MMC Document 63 Filed 02/03/10 Page 6 of 9
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

7

the majority of pro se litigants, who also must educate themselves about how to litigate a

civil action, whether in state or federal court. Further, the Court has been generous in

granting plaintiff numerous extensions of time to learn about and comply with the

requirements for service of process. Under such circumstances, the Court concludes no basis

for appointment of counsel has been shown. 

Accordingly, the Court will deny plaintiff’s October 22, 2009 Rule 7-9(a) motion, 

and will strike the motion for reconsideration filed in connection therewith. 

4. Plaintiff’s Motion Filed January 7, 2010

On January 7, 2010, plaintiff filed a second Rule 7-9(a) motion, in which he seeks

leave to file a motion for reconsideration on the ground he has succeeded in obtaining from

Represe State Prison officials, evidence demonstrating that not all forty-six envelopes

delivered for mailing by plaintiff were sent out. (Docket No. 62) Consequently, plaintiff

asserts, the Court’s order denying his motion to compel and dismissing all unserved

defendants should be vacated.

In support of his January 7, 2010 motion, plaintiff includes a copy of a grievance he

filed on August 2, 2009 at the informal level of review at Represa State Prison, in which

grievance he complained that “on or around” July 7, 2009, he handed forty-six envelopes to

Correctional Officer Ray for mailing, but the outgoing mail log for July 2009 shows that only

six envelopes were actually mailed. (Docket No. 62 Ex. A at 4.) Specifically, the outgoing

mail log submitted herein by plaintiff shows (1) that on July 14, 2009, a total of three

separate envelopes addressed to individuals at the office of the California Department of

Corrections and Rehabilitation in Sacramento were sent, respectively, to the attention of

defendants “J. Woodford (Director),” “M.H. Jensen (Appeals Examiner),” and “J.L. (Chief

Inmate Appeals Branch),” and (2) that on July 20, 2009, a total of three separate envelopes

addressed to the Liaison Legal Coordinator at Pelican Bay State Prison were sent,

respectively, to the attention of defendants “G. Griffith (CCH),” “R.G. Bleisner, et al.

(Chaplain),” and “R. Kun (C/O).” (Docket No. 62 Ex. D at 3.) 

Further, the grievance form submitted by plaintiff includes a response to plaintiff from

Case 3:04-cv-04903-MMC Document 63 Filed 02/03/10 Page 7 of 9
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Plaintiff’s argument that his delivery of the envelopes to prison officials for mailing

constitutes service under the “mailbox rule” is unavailing. See Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S.

266, 276 (1988) (holding pro se prisoner’s legal papers are deemed filed on date they were

delivered to prison officials for mailing, as opposed to date of receipt by court clerk). As the

Court has explained to plaintiff on more than one occasion, only a signed waiver of service

form from a defendant will suffice to establish such defendant has waived service. 

 

8

Correctional Officer Ray, dated December 10, 2009, in which Ray confirms he received all

forty-six legal envelopes from plaintiff. Although Ray further states he “processed [the

envelopes] according to CSP-SAC legal mail process,” and “placed all forty-six envelopes

into the mail bag located in the B-Facility Watch Office,” (Docket No. 62 Ex. A at 4), no 

mail log evidencing the mailing of such additional envelopes has been provided to the Court. 

The Court finds the new evidence presented by plaintiff constitutes sufficient grounds

for plaintiff to proceed with a motion for reconsideration based on his argument that prison

officials at Represa State Prison failed to mail forty of the forty-six envelopes requesting

waiver of service, and, in the interest of resolving this matter as expeditiously as possible, the

Court will construe plaintiff’s January 7, 2010 Rule 7-9(a) motion as plaintiff’s motion for

reconsideration. Accordingly, as set forth below, defendants’ counsel, Deputy Attorney

General Michael Quinn, will be directed to file a response to the motion and to include

therewith any and all evidence necessary to the Court’s determination as to the question of

whether plaintiff’s envelopes requesting waiver of service were mailed by Represa State

Prison officials to the forty defendants not listed on the outgoing mail log. If defendants are

able to provide sufficient evidence showing plaintiff’s envelopes were in fact mailed to each

of those forty defendants, the Court will deny plaintiff’s motion for an order setting aside the

Court’s prior order dismissing those defendants as unserved.1

Lastly, in granting plaintiff’s January 7, 2010 motion for leave to file a motion for

reconsideration, the Court will not reconsider the dismissal of defendants M.H. Jensen, J.L.,

G. Griffith, R.G. Bleisner and R. Kun. There is no dispute that the prison outgoing mail log

shows plaintiff’s envelopes containing requests for wavier of service were sent to those

defendants, and that none of them has signed and returned to plaintiff a waiver of service.

Case 3:04-cv-04903-MMC Document 63 Filed 02/03/10 Page 8 of 9
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

9

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court orders as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s motions for an extension of time to file opposition to defendant

Woodford’s motion for summary judgment are hereby GRANTED. (Docket Nos. 59 & 60.) 

Plaintiff shall file his opposition no later than March 8, 2010. Defendant shall file a

reply no later than fourteen (14) days after plaintiff’s opposition is filed. No further

extensions of time will be granted absent a showing of exceptional circumstances.

2. Plaintiff’s October 22, 2009 motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration is

hereby DENIED, and the motion for reconsideration filed in connection therewith is hereby

STRICKEN. (Docket Nos. 54 & 55).

3. Plaintiff’s January 7, 2010 motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration is

hereby GRANTED, and such motion will be construed as plaintiff’s motion for

reconsideration. (Docket No. 62.) 

Deputy Attorney General Michael Quinn shall file a response to plaintiff’s motion

within twenty (20) days of the date this order is filed. The motion shall be deemed submitted

on the date the response is filed.

This order terminates Docket Nos. 54, 55, 59, 60 and 62.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 3, 2010 _________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge 

Case 3:04-cv-04903-MMC Document 63 Filed 02/03/10 Page 9 of 9