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

BRADY ARMSTRONG,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-2136 GEB PAN P

vs.

D.L. RUNNELS, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff has requested a second extension of time to file and serve objections to

defendant’s May 1, 2006, motion to dismiss. Good cause appearing, plaintiff’s request for

extension will be granted. No further extensions of time will be granted.

Plaintiff also seeks an extension of time in which to accomplish service of

process. By order filed September 6, 2005, the court ordered service of process of the June 14,

2005 amended complaint on defendants Chandler, Young, Turner, Rumble, Phinney, James

Gomez, Gellette, Callison, Mangis and Fernandez. On September 27, 2005, the district court

dismissed plaintiff’s due process and fourth amendment claims against Garcia, Jiminez and

Pontarol, and dismissed plaintiff’s claims against Levin, Correa, Sands, Barton, Watkins, Roche

and Rohlfing. 

On October 13, 2005, service of process was ordered on defendants Runnels, 

Case 2:04-cv-02136-GEB-EFB Document 106 Filed 06/09/06 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

2

Pontarolo, Chandler, Phinney, Rumble, Turner, Young, Fernandez, James Gomez, Silvia Garcia, 

Jiminez, Sands and Paramo. On November 1, 2005, defendant Runnels filed an answer. On

January 19, 2006, defendants Runnels, Gellette, Callison, Phinney, Chandler and Young filed a

motion to dismiss. That motion stands submitted. 

On December 1, 2005, service on defendants Rumble and Mangis were returned

unexecuted. On January 25, 2006, plaintiff was directed to provide additional information to

execute service on defendants Rumble and Mangis. On April 21, 2006, after plaintiff provided

the requisite forms, the Marshal was directed to execute service on defendants Rumble and

Mangis. On May 12, 2006, service on defendant Mangis was again returned unexecuted. On

May 26, 2006, plaintiff was directed to provide additional information to accomplish service of

process on defendant Mangis. On May 30, 2006, service of process was again returned

unexecuted as to defendant Rumble.

On January 20, 2006, service on defendant Turner was returned unexecuted. On

January 26, 2006, service of process on defendant Fernandez was returned unexecuted. On April

21, 2006, plaintiff was directed to provide additional information for service of process on

defendant Fernandez within sixty days. 

On May 1, 2006, defendant Gomez filed a motion to dismiss.

This action is proceeding on plaintiff’s amended complaint filed June 14, 2005. It

appears plaintiff has, in good faith, attempted to locate defendants Rumble, Mangis, Fernandez

and Turner without success. Accordingly, defendants' counsel shall query the Department of

Corrections to ascertain the whereabouts of these defendants. If defendant Rumble, Mangis,

Fernandez and Turner are still employed with the Department of Corrections or any other

California state agency, counsel shall provide the business address to plaintiff. If counsel is

otherwise informed of the business address of defendants Rumble, Mangis, Fernandez and

Turner, counsel shall provide the address to plaintiff. In the event that counsel, after conducting

a good faith inquiry, cannot ascertain the business address of defendants Rumble, Mangis,

Case 2:04-cv-02136-GEB-EFB Document 106 Filed 06/09/06 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

3

Fernandez and Turner, counsel shall so inform the court. Defendants' counsel shall file and serve

the appropriate response within twenty days of the filed date of this order. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's May 5, 2006, motion for an extension of time to oppose the motion

to dismiss is granted. Plaintiff is granted 30 days from the date of this order to file and serve

objections to defendant’s May 1, 2006, motion to dismiss. Defendant’s reply, if any, shall be

filed seven days thereafter. No further extensions of time will be granted.

2. Plaintiff’s May 5, 2006 motion to extend the time for service of process is

granted; plaintiff is granted an additional 120 days in which to accomplish service of process on

defendants Rumble, Mangis, Fernandez and Turner.

3. Within twenty days from the date of this order, counsel for defendants shall

notify the court, in writing, whether it has provided to plaintiff the addresses for service of

process on defendants Rumble, Mangis, Fernandez and Turner, or whether, after good faith

inquiry, counsel was unable to locate their addresses.

DATED: June 8, 2006.

/001

arms2136.cuo

Case 2:04-cv-02136-GEB-EFB Document 106 Filed 06/09/06 Page 3 of 3