Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-06046/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-06046-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONNIE SCOTT,

Plaintiff,

v.

ERIC GOLDING, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 19-cv-06046-HSG 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

COURT TO ORDER UNITED STATES 

MARSHAL TO COMPLETE SERVICE 

ON DEFENDANTS KUMAR AND 

GOLDING VIA WAIVER OF SERVICE

Re: Dkt. No. 25

Petitioner has requested that the Court order the United States Marshal to complete service 

on defendants Kumar and Golding. Dkt. No. 25. Petitioner states that California Deputy Attorney 

General (“DAG”) Wilfred Fong has filed a waiver of reply indicating that the defendants waive 

any deficiencies in service of the summons and complaint. Petitioner therefore requests that the 

United States Marshal serve defendants’ counsel, DAG Fong, with a waiver of service. Petitioner 

further states that he has reason to believe that defendants Golding and Kumar have previously 

accepted service of summons and complaint at Pelican Bay State Prison in C No. 19-cv-01613 

WHA, Robinson v. Robertson, et al. Petitioner’s request is DENIED for the following reasons. 

First, petitioner misunderstands the record. The only defendant that has appeared in this 

action is defendant Golding. On January 29, 2020, DAG Fong appeared on behalf of defendant 

Golding and filed a waiver of reply and a demand for jury trial. Dkt. No. 14. By filing this waiver 

of reply and demand for jury trial, defendant Golding has acknowledged that he has accepted 

service of the summons and complaint, even though the executed summons has not yet been filed 

in the record. Nothing in the record indicates that defendant Kumar has been served. No executed 

summons has been filed by the United States Marshal; defendant Kumar has not made any filings 

Case 4:19-cv-06046-HSG Document 26 Filed 03/19/20 Page 1 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

in this action; and DAG Fong does not yet represent defendant Kumar.1 Plaintiff is incorrect that 

DAG Fong has waived any defects in service with respect to both defendants. Dkt. No. 23 at 3; 

Dkt. No. 25 at 2. As explained supra, DAG Fong currently only represents defendant Golding, 

and has only filed a waiver of reply on defendant Golding. Dkt. No. 14; Dkt. No. 15 at 2. The 

waiver of reply only waives deficiencies in service of the summons and complaint with respect to 

defendant Golding.2 Dkt. No. 14. 

Second, plaintiff misunderstands the service requirement, the procedure for waiving 

service, and the United States Marshal’s role in effecting service. To commence an action against 

a party, the plaintiff must serve a copy of the complaint with a summons in accordance with Rule 

4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See generally Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. The defendant having 

accepted service in a separate action, whether or not the other action makes similar allegations, 

does not constitute effecting service in this particular action.3 While a Court must order that the 

United States Marshal serve the summons and complaint for plaintiffs proceeding in forma 

pauperis, as is the case with plaintiff, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not require that the 

United States Marshal assist a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis in requesting that a 

defendant waive service of summons. Compare Fed. R. Civ P. 4(c) with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d). If 

plaintiff wishes to request that defendant Kumar waive service, he may do so pursuant to Rule 

4(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Nor is the United States Marshal responsible for 

ensuring (or completing) service of process. Although a plaintiff who is incarcerated and 

proceeding in forma pauperis may rely on service by the United States Marshal, “[a]t a minimum, 

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

apparent defects of which [he] has knowledge.” Rochon v. Dawson, 828 F.2d 1107, 1110 (5th Cir. 

1987). Here, it is not yet clear why the United States Marshal has so far been unable to effect 

1 DAG Fong has indicated that the California Office of the Attorney General will represent 

defendant Kumar when defendant Kumar is served or when defendant Kumar accepts service. 

Dkt. No. 15 at 2.

2

42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g) provides that any defendant to a lawsuit brought by an incarcerated person 

may waive the right to answer the complaint without admitting the allegations set forth in the 

complaint. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g).

3 Defendant Kumar is not a named defendant in C No. 19-cv-01613 WHA, Robinson v. Robertson, 

et al. 

Case 4:19-cv-06046-HSG Document 26 Filed 03/19/20 Page 2 of 3
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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

service upon defendant Kumar and if there are any defects which plaintiff may need to remedy. 

Accordingly, the Court orders as follows. The Court DENIES as moot plaintiff’s request 

that defendant Golding be served. Defendant Golding has been served and has appeared in this 

action. The Court DENIES plaintiff’s request that the United States Marshal serve defendant 

Kumar with a request for a waiver of service Plaintiff may request that defendant Kumar waive 

service pursuant to Rule 4(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court DENIES 

plaintiff’s request that the United States Marshal effect service on defendant Kumar. The Court 

has already ordered the United States Marshal to serve the summons and complaint on defendant 

Kumar. Until the United States Marshal files the summons in the record, the Court cannot 

determine why service has not yet been effected.

This order terminates Dkt. No. 25.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 3/19/2020

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 4:19-cv-06046-HSG Document 26 Filed 03/19/20 Page 3 of 3