Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00726/USCOURTS-caed-1_22-cv-00726-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Frank Chang
Defendant
John Louis Spears
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN LOUIS SPEARS,

Plaintiff,

v.

FRANK CHANG,

Defendant.

Case No.: 1:22-cv-00726 SKO (PC)

ORDER DIRECTING UNITED STATES 

MARSHAL TO SERVE DEFENDANT 

FRANK CHANG

Plaintiff John Louis Spears is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 

action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds against Defendant Frank 

Chang for a violation of the Eighth Amendment, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

I. BACKGROUND

Following screening of Plaintiff’s complaint, this Court issued its Order Finding Service 

Appropriate on April 18, 2023. (Doc. 14.) Service was to be effected on “Frank Chang, M.D., 

allegedly employed as physician at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility in 

Corcoran, on February 2, 2017.” (Id.) 

On May 30, 2023, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) 

filed a notice of intent to waive service for Defendant Chang at the Substance Abuse Treatment 

Facility (“SATF”). (Doc. 16.) On June 5, 2023, the CDCR filed a notice of intent not to waive 

service, indicating attempted contact with Defendant Chang at SATF “failed,” and a last known 

Case 1:22-cv-00726-KES-SKO Document 26 Filed 01/02/24 Page 1 of 5
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

address of “161 W. Fairview Ave., San Gabriel, CA 91776” was provided. (Doc. 17.)

On September 15, 2023, the United States Marshal Service filed its USM-285 form 

indicating service could not be effected on Defendant Frank Chang. (Doc. 18 at 1.) The United 

States Marshal was advised by the current resident of 161 W. Fairview Avenue in San Gabriel, 

California, that Chang has not resided at that address “as of March 2021.” (Id. at 2.) 

The Court issued its Order To Show Cause (“OSC”) Why Defendant Chang Should Not 

Be Dismissed From This Action For Plaintiff’s Failure To Provide Sufficient Information To 

Effectuate Service on September 18, 2023. (Doc. 19.) Plaintiff was ordered to respond to the OSC 

or, alternatively, to provide additional information concerning Defendant Chang’s current 

location. (Id. at 3.) After Plaintiff filed a response, (Doc. 20), the Court issued its Order 

discharging the OSC and directed Plaintiff to provide sufficient information to effectuate service 

upon Defendant Chang within 30 days. (Doc. 21.) 

After a brief extension of time, on December 26, 2023, Plaintiff filed a document titled 

“Response to Order Directing Plaintiff to Provide Sufficient Information to Effectuate Service on 

Defendant Chang.” (Doc. 25.) 

II. DISCUSSION

Request for Judicial Notice

Plaintiff seeks judicial notice pursuant to “F.R.C.P. 501” that the “courts have imposed on 

this indigent prisoner the responsibility to locate and provide the courts with any and all relevant 

contact information for defendant Frank Chang.” (Doc. 25 at 1.) Plaintiff contends he “had to 

borrow funds from family members just [to] obtain investigative services for the whereabouts of 

the defendant in this case.” (Id.) 

The Court presumes Plaintiff intended to cite Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. 

Titled “Judicial Notice of Adjudicative Facts” that rules provides as follows:

(a) Scope. This rule governs judicial notice of an adjudicative fact 

only, not a legislative fact.

(b) Kinds of Facts That May Be Judicially Noticed. The court may 

judicially notice a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute 

because it:

Case 1:22-cv-00726-KES-SKO Document 26 Filed 01/02/24 Page 2 of 5
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

(1) is generally known within the trial court's territorial 

jurisdiction; or

(2) can be accurately and readily determined from sources 

whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.

(c) Taking Notice. The court:

(1) may take judicial notice on its own; or

(2) must take judicial notice if a party requests it and the court 

is supplied with the necessary information.

(d) Timing. The court may take judicial notice at any stage of the 

proceeding.

(e) Opportunity to Be Heard. On timely request, a party is entitled 

to be heard on the propriety of taking judicial notice and the nature 

of the fact to be noticed. If the court takes judicial notice before 

notifying a party, the party, on request, is still entitled to be heard.

(f) Instructing the Jury. In a civil case, the court must instruct the 

jury to accept the noticed fact as conclusive. In a criminal case, the 

court must instruct the jury that it may or may not accept the noticed 

fact as conclusive.

As the Court has explained previously (see Doc. 19 at 3 & Doc. 21 at 3), it is Plaintiff’s 

obligation to provide adequate and sufficient information to effect service of the summons and 

complaint despite his indigency. See Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994). 

Plaintiff was ordered “to provide the Court with additional information concerning Defendant 

Chang’s current location” (Doc. 21 at 5; see also Doc. 19 at 3). The Court did not order Plaintiff 

“to provide the courts with any and all relevant contact information.” 

Second, whether Plaintiff “had to borrow funds from family members” to “obtain 

investigative services” is not a fact “generally known within [this Court’s] territorial jurisdiction,” 

nor is Plaintiff’s statement a fact that “can be accurately and readily determined from sources 

whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.” See Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(1) & (2). 

For these reasons, the Court denies Plaintiff’s request that the Court take judicial notice of 

it having “imposed on this indigent prisoner the responsibility to locate and provide the courts 

with any and all relevant contact information for defendant Frank Chang” or that Plaintiff “had to 

borrow funds from family members” in order to “obtain investigative services.” 

Case 1:22-cv-00726-KES-SKO Document 26 Filed 01/02/24 Page 3 of 5
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

Additional Information Provided by Plaintiff

Plaintiff has provided additional information to the Court concerning Defendant Chang. 

That information includes licensing status, aliases, relatives and close associates, a legal business 

name, business mailing addresses, addresses associated with Chang’s practice, current home 

addresses, and current telephone numbers. (Doc. 25 at 2-5.) 

The Court will direct the United States Marshal to attempt to re-serve Frank Chang, M.D. 

given this additional information. 

Plaintiff’s Request That Defendant Chang Not Be Dismissed

Plaintiff requests Defendant Chang “[n]ot be dismissed from this claim and all attempts 

made by defendant Frank Chang to avoid service, controverting the USMS ability to properly 

effectuate service and using his close associates and relatives to lie to the USMS and help the 

defendant evade service must be punished for delaying proceedings and disrespecting the courts 

time.” (Doc. 25 at 5.) 

There is no evidence before the Court that Defendant Chang has sought to avoid service or 

that Chang’s associates or relatives have lied to the United States Marshal to help him evade 

service of process and delay these proceedings. The record before this Court indicates only that 

Defendant Chang could not be located at either SATF or at his last known address in San Gabriel, 

California. 

As set forth above, the Court will order the United States Marshal to attempt service of 

process on Defendant Chang in light of the additional information Plaintiff has provided to the 

Court. As a result, no action is being taken at this time to dismiss Defendant Chang from the

action. Should future efforts to effectuate service of process be unsuccessful, the Court may be 

required to take such action pursuant to Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Following submission of additional contact information provided by Plaintiff (Doc. 25 at 

2-5), the United States Marshal will be directed to serve the summons and complaint upon 

Defendant Frank Chang employing the information provided by Plaintiff. 

Case 1:22-cv-00726-KES-SKO Document 26 Filed 01/02/24 Page 4 of 5
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

Accordingly, and for the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk of the Court SHALL provide the United States Marshal with a copy of the 

complaint, the summons, Plaintiff’s response filed December 26, 2023 (Doc. 25) and 

this order; and 

2. The United States Marshal SHALL serve process of the complaint, the summons, and 

this order upon Defendant Frank Chang pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and 28 U.S.C. § 

566(c). Within 10 days of personal service, the United States Marshal shall file the 

return of service, along with the costs subsequently incurred in effecting service. 

These costs shall be enumerated on the USM-285 form and shall include the costs 

incurred by the United States Marshal for photocopying the summons and complaint 

and for preparing new USM-285 forms, if required. Costs of service will be taxed 

against each personally served defendant in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(2).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 2, 2024 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:22-cv-00726-KES-SKO Document 26 Filed 01/02/24 Page 5 of 5