Harrison v. Adams, et al
Filing
238
ORDER REJECTING 232 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS to Dismiss Defendants Zakari, Bastianon, Edmonds, and Raygoza for Insufficient Information to Effect Service of Process; ORDER Discharging March 17, 2015 Order to Show Cause; ORDER Requiring Defendant CDCR to Provide First, Middle, and Last Names of Certain Defendants to Plaintiff within 30 Days signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 05/20/2015. (Flores, E)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
MICHAEL D. HARRISON,
12
13
14
Plaintiff,
v.
15
16
T. MOORE, et al.,
17
Defendants.
Case No. 1:08-cv-1065-AWI-MJS (PC)
ORDER REJECTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS
DEFENDANTS ZAKARI, BASTIANON,
EDMONDS, AND RAYGOZA FOR
INSUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO
EFFECT SERVICE OF PROCESS (ECF
No. 232)
ORDER DISCHARGING MARCH 17, 2015
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE (ECF No. 227)
18
ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANT CDCR
TO PROVIDE FIRST, MIDDLE, AND LAST
NAMES OF CERTAIN DEFENDANTS TO
PLAINTIFF WITHIN 30 DAYS
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil
rights action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. The action proceeds on Plaintiff’s
Eighth Amendment claims against numerous defendants. (ECF No. 160.) The matter
was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)
and Local Rule 302 of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California.
1
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
The Magistrate Judge issued an Order to Show Cause why certain defendants
should not be dismissed for failure to serve process. (ECF No. 227). Plaintiff failed to
respond. As a result, on April 28, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and
Recommendations to dismiss Defendants Zakari, Bastianon, Edmonds, and Raygoza
because they had not been served and all avenues to locate and serve them had been
exhausted. (ECF No. 232.) Plaintiff filed objections, claiming he had not received the
Court’s second motion to show cause (ECF No. 227) why these defendants should not
be dismissed. Plaintiff further contends that Defendants refused to provide information
regarding the first and middle names and address of the above-listed unserved
Defendants (ECF No. 234.), despite the Magistrate Judge’s order requiring Defendants
to provide the names of those defendants to Plaintiff (and, in the alternative, providing
CDCR the opportunity to articulate more concrete privacy concerns that would justify
disclosure of the names and addresses to the United States Marshal Service rather than
defendant) (ECF No. 199). That objection is well taken.
If Defendants failed to respond to Plaintiff’s Interrogatory #3, seeking the correct
spelling of all defendants first and middle names, then Plaintiff would have good cause
to have not effected service on those defendants. In order to quickly dispose of this
issue, Defendant CDCR will be ordered to provide to Plaintiff the first, middle, and last
names of Defendants Zakari, Bastianon, Edmonds, and Raygoza within thirty days of the
date of this order. Proof of compliance with this order must be filed with the Clerk of the
Court. The Magistrate Judge noted that CDCR may object to such a disclosure as
implicating security concerns for prison personnel. If that is the case, Defendant CDCR
may submit an application for relief from this order within fourteen days of the date of this
order, articulating the basis of the objection and requesting authorization to submit the
first, middle, and last names as well as the last known address of the unserved
defendants to the Marshal Service.
Defendant CDCR may seek relief from this order if it has already complied with
28
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
the Magistrate Judge’s order compelling it to provide information to Defendant (or such
information is not within CDCR’s control). If that is the case, Defendant CDCR shall
submit evidence to substantiate that fact within fourteen days of the date of this order.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court has
conducted a de novo review of the case. Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that
the April 28, 2015 Findings and Recommendations cannot be adopted.
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The Court respectfully declines to adopt the findings and recommendations
(ECF No. 232), filed April 28, 2015;
2. Defendant CDCR is ordered to provide the first, middle, and last names of
Defendants Zakari, Bastianon, Edmonds, and Raygoza to Plaintiff within 30
days of the date of this order. Proof of compliance with this order must be filed
with the Clerk of the Court;
3. The order to show cause issued on March 17, 2015, is hereby discharged,
with the reservation that the unserved defendants will be dismissed without
further notice if the Court determines that Defendant CDCR did, in fact, submit
the first, middle, and last names of those defendants to Plaintiff in compliance
with the Magistrate Judge’s August 19, 2014 order, compelling such
disclosure;
4. Plaintiff is ordered to effect service on the unserved defendants by way of the
Marshal Service within fourteen days of Defendant CDCR providing the names
of the unserved defendants, and in no event later than sixty days after the
date of this order.
24
25
26
27
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 20, 2015
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?