Barrett v. Cate et al
ORDER GRANTING 30 Request for Assistance in Locating Defendant; ORDER Directing the Clerk of the Court to Forward this Orer to the Legal Affairs Divsion of the CDCR, signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 5/31/11. (Gonzalez, R)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ROBERT E. BARRETT,
Case No. 1:09-cv-01741 LJO JLT (PC)
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE IN
MATTHEW CATE, et al.,
ORDER DIRECTING THE CLERK OF THE
COURT TO FORWARD THIS ORDER TO
THE LEGAL AFFAIRS DIVISION OF THE
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. On February 25, 2011, the United States Marshal returned service documents addressed to
Defendant McGinnis unexecuted. (Doc. 21.) On March 2, 2011, the Court ordered Plaintiff to provide
additional information regarding Defendant McGinnis. (Doc. 22.) In response, on April 22, 2011,
Plaintiff filed a motion for assistance in obtaining information regarding Defendant McGinnis for the
purpose of effectuating service. (Doc. 30.) Defendants subsequently opposed the motion, arguing that:
(1) Plaintiff cites no authority for requiring “correction department defendants” to assist Plaintiff in
effectuating service; and (2) Plaintiff appears to have erroneously confused Defendant McGinnis with
Defendant McGuinness, who is already a party to this action. (Doc. 31 at 1-2.)
The Court addresses Defendants’ second argument first. From the operative pleadings, it does
not appear that Plaintiff erroneously confused Dr. McGinnis with Dr. McGuinness. Plaintiff explicitly
alleges that Dr. McGinnis examined him while he was confined at California State Prison Corcoran,
whereas Dr. McGuinness examined him while he was confined at California Medical Facility. (Doc.
17 at 4-5.) Thus, Plaintiff’s clear position is that Dr. McGinnis and Dr. McGuinness are two entirely
As to Defendants’ first argument, this Court has consistently recognized the role the California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation must play in assisting proper service of process on prison
officials in light of a prisoner’s incarcerated status and the sensitivity of all information pertaining to
prison officials. Therefore, while the Court will not require Defendants themselves to assist in the
location of Defendant McGinnis, the Court will seek the assistance of the Legal Affairs Division of the
California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
The Clerk of the Court is directed to forward a copy of this order to the Legal Affairs
Division of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.
The Court requests that, within sixty (60) days of the date of this order, the Legal Affairs
Division provide a current address for William McGinnis where service of process may
be effectuated. Plaintiff indicates that William McGinnis worked at California State
Prison, Corcoran in August 2006.
If an address can be ascertained, the Legal Affairs Division is directed to provide the
information to the Court under seal. The Court will then order the United States Marshal
to re-initiate service at that address.
If an address cannot be ascertained, the Legal Affairs Division is directed to furnish a
written explanation to the Court as to why William McGinnis could not be located and
what efforts were taken in this endeavor.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 31, 2011
/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?