Castle v. Knowles et al

Filing 51

ORDER denying 50 Motion for Reconsideration and directing Clerk of Court to forward a copy of this Order to the Marshals signed by District Judge James A Teilborg on 4/30/2010. (Lundstrom, T)

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 Defendants also argue that this Court should reconsider its Order because, "Counsel has contacted Kern Valley State Prison and been informed that after checking four different employee roster[s], there is no person named Sather who is employed at the prison." Doc. #50 at n. 2. This Court takes judicial notice that in 1:08-cv-845-JAT (E.D. Cal. (Fresno)), Sergeant Sather has been served and has answered. Therefore, while counsel may be correct that he is not a currently employed, the Court is unpersuaded that he was not employed at the
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Sy Lee Castle, Plaintiff, vs. M. Knowles, et al., Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

No. CV 1:08-01267-JAT ORDER

Pending before the Court is Defendants' motion for reconsideration of this Court's order allowing Plaintiff to issue subpoenas to attempt to locate an address for Defendant Sather. Defendants point out that the delay in serving Sather to this point has been largely Plaintiff's own fault due to his poor handwriting and his failure to timely advise the Court that the Court was misinterpreting his handwriting. Defendants make a valid point. And, because of these delays which were caused by Plaintiff, the February 2, 2010 order will be Plaintiff's last opportunity to accomplish service. However, the Court will allow Plaintiff this one last avenue to attempt to gain Defendant Sather's address for service.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 28

Consistent with the February 2, 2010 Order, on February 23, 2010, Plaintiff returned his completed subpoenas to attempt to obtain Sather's address. The Clerk's office forwarded the subpoenas to the USM-Sacramento for service. There is no further status noted in the record. To ensure the progress of this case, the Court will require a status report from the Marshals. Based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' motion for reconsideration (Doc. #50) is denied. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall forward a copy of this Order to the Marshals. IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that by May 19, 2010, the Marshals' office shall file a status report advising whether the subpoenas forwarded to them on February 23, 2010 have been served as required by the February 2, 2010 Order. DATED this 30th day of April, 2010.

time of this incident. Therefore, Plaintiff's efforts at service are not futile.
-2-