Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01043/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01043-7/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AARON L. COOPER,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-1043 GEB JFM P

vs.

CAL TERHUNE, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on plaintiff’s claim that defendants Campbell,

DeLong and Armstrong violated plaintiff’s rights under the Eighth Amendment by subjecting

him to excessive force. (See Order filed September 13, 2005.) Defendants DeLong and

Armstrong have answered the complaint. (See Answer, filed February 17, 2006.) However,

service directed to defendant Sergeant T. H. Campbell has twice been returned unexecuted by the

United States Marshal. 

The first time service directed to Sergeant Campbell was returned unexecuted,

plaintiff was directed to provide additional information for service of process on defendant

Campbell. Plaintiff complied with that order by returning a completed USM-285 form with an

address for Sergeant T.H. Campbell at High Desert State Prison. (See Return of Service, filed

Case 2:05-cv-01043-GEB -KJN Document 58 Filed 02/22/07 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

 In a footnote on the first page of their memorandum of points and authorities in support 1

of the motion for summary judgment, defendants DeLong and Armstrong suggest that the court

may use the undisputed facts set forth in their motion to screen out the claims against defendant

Campbell pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court declines that suggestion.

 In the alternative, counsel for defendants DeLong and Armstrong may, but will not be 2

required to, accept service on behalf of defendant Campbell and undertake to represent him fully

in this action.

2

October 27, 2006.) Plaintiff also indicated that the defendant could be served through the High

Desert State Prison Litigation Office, through the California Department of Corrections and

Rehabilitation (CDCR), or by seeking defendant Campbell’s last known mailing address from

counsel for defendants DeLong and Armstrong. The return of service filed October 27, 2006

indicates that a request for waiver of service was mailed on May 2, 2006, returned, then

forwarded to a new address on August 16, 2006, from which it was returned undeliverable, after

which the CDCR locator advised the United States Marshal that there are two T.H. Campbell’s

and they require “specific identifiers” to assist in the completion of service of process.

On August 18, 2006, defendants DeLong and Armstrong filed a motion for

summary judgment. It is apparent from that motion that defendants DeLong and Armstrong

know which Sergeant T.H. Campbell is the proper defendant in this action, and that they or their

attorney should be in a position to provide the United States Marshal with the “specific

identifiers” required to complete service of process on defendant Campbell. Good cause

1

appearing, defendants DeLong and Armstrong will be directed to provide the United States

Marshal with such information or show cause in writing why they are unable to do so.2

Review of defendant DeLong and Armstrong’s motion for summary judgment

shows that the interests of judicial economy and avoiding piecemeal litigation will be best served

if the status of defendant Campbell in this action is resolved prior to resolution of any motion for

summary judgment in this action. Accordingly, defendant DeLong and Armstrong’s motion for

/////

/////

Case 2:05-cv-01043-GEB -KJN Document 58 Filed 02/22/07 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

 Defendants’ motion for summary judgment may be renewed by a simple notice of 3

motion that refers to the documents filed in connection with their August 18, 2006 motion.

3

summary judgment will be denied without prejudice to its renewal not later than sixty days after

the status of defendant Campbell is resolved.3

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Within twenty days from the date of this order, defendants DeLong and

Armstrong shall provide the United States Marshal service with specific information concerning

the identity of defendant Sergeant T.H. Campbell sufficient to permit completion of service of

process or show cause in writing why they cannot comply with this order; and

2. Defendants’ August 18, 2006 motion for summary judgment is denied without

prejudice to its renewal within sixty days from the date on which defendant Campbell appears in

this action or is dismissed herefrom.

DATED: February 21, 2007.

12

coop1043.o

Case 2:05-cv-01043-GEB -KJN Document 58 Filed 02/22/07 Page 3 of 3