Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-00915/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-00915-8/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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DAVID G. LEONARD, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

JIM DENNY, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:12-cv-0915 TLN AC P 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner, and former Sutter County Jail prisoner, proceeding pro se and 

in forma pauperis in this action for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Currently before the court are 

defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 67) and plaintiff’s motion for sanctions (ECF No. 71). 

 Plaintiff filed his second amended complaint on September 18, 2014. ECF No. 66. 

Before the court could screen the complaint, defendants filed a motion to dismiss on October 6, 

2014. ECF No. 67. On November 18, 2014, defendants filed a declaration of service indicating 

re-service of the motion to dismiss, but offering no explanation as to why re-service was 

necessary. ECF No. 68. On November 21, 2014, the court filed an order noting that plaintiff had 

yet to file an opposition to the motion to dismiss and that if he did not do so within thirty days 

such failure would be deemed consent to having the motion to dismiss granted. ECF No. 69. On 

December 17, 2014, plaintiff sought an extension of time to file an opposition to defendants’ 

motion to dismiss (ECF No. 70) and a motion for sanctions and opposition to the motion to 

Case 2:12-cv-00915-TLN-AC Document 75 Filed 09/22/15 Page 1 of 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 

2

dismiss (ECF No. 71). The motion for sanctions and opposition requested that the court deny the 

motion to dismiss as sanctions for defendants’ failure to timely serve plaintiff and alternatively 

requested an additional thirty days to respond to the motion. Id. at 4. 

 On December 23, 2014, defendants filed a notice of non-opposition to plaintiff’s motion 

for extension (ECF No. 72) and an opposition to plaintiff’s motion for sanctions (ECF No. 73). 

Defendants stated that they served plaintiff with the motion to dismiss on October 6, 2014, but 

that it was returned as undeliverable on November 17, 2014. Id. at 2. Defendants assert that until 

the motion was returned, they were unaware that plaintiff had not received it; they re-served it 

immediately on November 18, 2014, and filed an amended proof of service with the court. Id. at 

2-3. On January 5, 2015, the court granted plaintiff’s motion for extension and deemed his 

opposition (ECF No. 71) timely filed. ECF No. 74. 

Pursuant to the Prison Litigation Reform Act, the court is required to screen complaints 

brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a 

governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Plaintiff’s second amended complaint has yet to be 

screened and defendants’ motion to dismiss is therefore premature. The court will therefore deny 

the motion to dismiss as premature and screen the second amended complaint.1 For these 

reasons, the court will also deny plaintiff’s request that all facts set forth in the second amended 

complaint be deemed admitted because defendants’ did not timely respond to the complaint. ECF 

No. 71 at 4-5. Upon screening of the second amended complaint, defendants will be directed to 

respond to the complaint as appropriate. 

 Plaintiff has also moved for sanctions on the grounds that defendants’ failed to serve a 

copy of the motion to dismiss on him when it was filed on October 6, 2014, and that they did not 

serve him with the motion to dismiss until November 18, 2014. Id. at 2. Though defendants’ 

indicate in their opposition to the motion for sanctions that the motion to dismiss was initially 

served on plaintiff at his address at the California Institution for Men (ECF No. 73 at 2), the 

 

1

 The court also notes that while plaintiff did oppose the motion on the grounds that it was not 

timely served on him, he has yet to oppose the motion on its merits. It appears that this failure is 

likely due to the service error on defendants’ part and the court misconstruing the opposition on 

the basis of untimely service as a complete opposition to the motion to dismiss. 

Case 2:12-cv-00915-TLN-AC Document 75 Filed 09/22/15 Page 2 of 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 

3

certificate of service attached to the motion to dismiss indicates that it was mailed to plaintiff at 

Avenal State Prison (ECF No. 67 at 14), plaintiff’s previous address (ECF No. 42). It appears to 

the court that defendants’ may have inadvertently used an old certificate of service and initially 

served the motion at the wrong address.2 

Though defendants did re-serve the motion immediately upon discovering that plaintiff 

had not received it, and filed a notice of re-service with the court, defendants are advised that 

simply filing such a notice without explanation deprives the court of necessary information about 

case status. Defendants’ notice of re-service failed to alert the court to an error in service that 

required plaintiff be given additional time to respond. This failure resulted in a court order, 

issued two days later, warning plaintiff that he had not opposed the motion and that if he 

continued to fail to do so he would be deemed as having consented to the motion being granted. 

ECF No. 69. This order demonstrated the court’s ignorance of the fact that plaintiff had not 

timely received the motion. 

Defendants are cautioned that in the future they should be more conscientious both in 

ensuring they are serving plaintiff at the proper location and in providing proper notification to 

the court when such errors occur. However, the court does not find that defendants were acting in 

bad faith, and in light of the court’s dismissal of the motion to dismiss as premature, plaintiff’s 

motion for sanctions will be denied. 

 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

1. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 67) is denied without prejudice because it is 

premature. 

2. Plaintiff’s motion for sanctions (ECF No. 71) is denied. 

DATED: September 21, 2015 

 

2

 The motion to dismiss the second amended complaint (ECF No. 67) contains some of the same 

arguments as defendants’ motion to dismiss the original complaint (ECF No. 19), which was 

served when plaintiff was housed at Avenal State Prison (id. at 13; ECF No. 1). 

Case 2:12-cv-00915-TLN-AC Document 75 Filed 09/22/15 Page 3 of 3