Charles Keller Cooper Jr. v. Volodinos et al

Filing 24

PETITIONERS REQUEST FOR SUBPOENAS; FURTHER ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Magistrate Judge Alicia G. Rosenberg. IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's request for subpoenas is GRANTED. The Clerk shall send him two subpoenas in blank. The Court cautions Plaintif f, however, that before the Court will direct service of any subpoena on his behalf as an in forma pauperis litigant, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), the Court must approve the content of the subpoena. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall show ca use in writing, or before October 31, 2017, why Defendant should not be dismissed from this action without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m). (If the sole defendant is dismissed, then the Court would also dismiss the action without prejudice.) On or be fore that date, Plaintiff should provide any additional information he receives about Defendant so that he can be identified, either via subpoena or otherwise, and served with process. (See Order for details.) (Attachments: # 1 Blank Subpoena) (mp)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 17-2463-FMO (AGR)

Title

Charles Keller Cooper Jr. v. Deputy Volodinos

Present: The
Honorable

Date

August 25, 2017

Alicia G. Rosenberg, United States Magistrate Judge

Marine Pogosyan

None

None

Deputy Clerk

Court Reporter / Recorder

Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs:

Attorneys Present for Defendants:

not present

None

Proceedings:

In Chambers: PETITIONER’S REQUEST FOR SUBPOENAS;
FURTHER ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

On March 30, 2017, Plaintiff, a state inmate proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights
complaint alleging abuse by a Los Angeles County jail deputy, Volodinos, the sole defendant.
On March 31, 2017, the court issued an order directing the U.S. Marshal to serve process on
Volodinos in his individual and official capacity. The process receipts filed on May 1, 2017
indicate that Volodinos could not be served because “[t]here is no [Los Angeles County Sheriff’s
Deputy] with the last name Volodinos.” (Dkt. Nos. 7, 8.)
Accordingly, on July 19, 2017, the Court issued an order to show cause, advising Plaintiff
as follows:
“If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the
court – on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff – must dismiss the
action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made
within a specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the
court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
4(m).
An “incarcerated pro se plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis is entitled to
rely on the U.S. Marshal for service of the summons and complaint” after “having
provided the necessary information to help effectuate service” under 28 U.S.C. §
1915 and Rule 4. Puett v. Blandford, 912 F.2d 270, 275 (9th Cir.1990); see also
Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir.1994), abrogated in part on other
grounds by Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995)).
When service cannot be accomplished due to the pro se plaintiff's failure to
provide sufficient information to identify or locate the defendant, and the plaintiff
fails to remedy the situation after being put on notice, dismissal without prejudice
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 17-2463-FMO (AGR)

Date

Title

August 25, 2017

Charles Keller Cooper Jr. v. Deputy Volodinos

is appropriate. Id. at 1421-22.
Plaintiff may be able to obtain further information by propounding
discovery, such as a subpoena issued to the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s
Department.
...
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff shall show cause in writing, or before
August 21, 2017, why Defendant Volodinos should not be dismissed from this
action without prejudice pursuant to Rule 4(m). (If the sole defendant is
dismissed, then the Court would also dismiss the action without prejudice.)
Plaintiff should provide any additional information he has about Volodinos so that
he can be identified and served with process.
(Dkt. No. 16.)
On August 8, 2017, Plaintiff filed responses to the show-cause order. (Dkt. Nos. 19, 21.)
Among other things, he indicates his ongoing efforts to obtain Defendant’s address by filing jail
grievances requesting it. He also filed a letter requesting subpoenas “to get information from
[the] Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department.” (Dkt. No. 20.)
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request for subpoenas is GRANTED. The Clerk shall
send him two subpoenas in blank. The Court cautions Plaintiff, however, that before the Court
will direct service of any subpoena on his behalf as an in forma pauperis litigant, see 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(d), the Court must approve the content of the subpoena. In addition, Plaintiff is advised
of the following:
The process receipt indicates that the Sheriff’s Department has no deputy with the last
name Volodinos. “Please confirm the name.” (Dkt. Nos. 7-8.) Therefore, Plaintiff may have
an incorrect spelling of Defendant’s name. Plaintiff may request to serve a subpoena on the
Sheriff’s Department to produce, for example, (1) a duty roster for a particular date, time or
shift, and location within Twin Towers; (2) incident reports for the incident involving Plaintiff’s
foot while housed in HOH (High Observation Housing) if Plaintiff provides an approximate
date, time and location; and (3) medical records for the incident involving Plaintiff’s foot, which
may contain the deputy’s name. Plaintiff should provide as much information as possible about
dates, times and locations such as what cell or building he was in at the time.
Plaintiff should return the subpoenas to the Court for review promptly.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall show cause in writing, or before October
CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Page 2 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL
Case No.

CV 17-2463-FMO (AGR)

Date

Title

August 25, 2017

Charles Keller Cooper Jr. v. Deputy Volodinos

31, 2017, why Defendant should not be dismissed from this action without prejudice pursuant to
Rule 4(m). (If the sole defendant is dismissed, then the Court would also dismiss the action
without prejudice.) On or before that date, Plaintiff should provide any additional information
he receives about Defendant so that he can be identified, either via subpoena or otherwise, and
served with process.

Initials of Preparer

CV-90 (06/04)

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

mp

Page 3 of 3