Thomas v. Stanislaus County et al

Filing 31

ORDER Discharging Orders to Show Cause and Denying Marshal's Request for Reimbursement of Costs Incurred in Effecting Personal Service on Defendants Christianson and Leguria; ORDER Directing Clerk's Office to Serve Order on Marshal's Sacramento Office signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 04/04/2012. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
DERRICK J. THOMAS,

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-02015-AWI-SKO PC

9
Plaintiff,

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDERS TO SHOW
CAUSE AND DENYING MARSHAL’S
REQUEST FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF
COSTS INCURRED IN EFFECTING
PERSONAL SERVICE ON DEFENDANTS
CHRISTIANSON AND LEGURIA

10
v.
11
STANISLAUS COUNTY, et al.,
12
Defendants.
13

(Docs. 24-27)

14

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK’S OFFICE
TO SERVE ORDER ON MARSHAL’S
SACRAMENTO OFFICE

15
16
/
17
18

This is a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by Plaintiff Derrick J. Thomas, a

19

prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. On April 24, 2012, the United States Marshal

20

filed requests seeking reimbursement of the costs incurred in effecting personal service on

21

Defendants Christianson and Leguria. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(2). (Docs. 24, 25.) Filed concurrently

22

were the USM-285 forms showing that waivers of service were not returned by either Defendant and

23

personal service was effected on March 28, 2012, via acceptance of service by a supervisor with the

24

County. (Docs. 22, 23.) On April 26, 2012, the Court ordered Defendants to show cause why the

25

cost of personal service should not be taxed against them. Defendants filed a response on April 26,

26

2012, following their receipt of the Marshal’s request for reimbursement.

27

Defendant Christianson executed a waiver of service on behalf of the Sheriff’s Department,

28

which was returned to the Marshal and filed on September 15, 2011. (Doc. 18, p. 3.) Despite a
1

1

diligent search, a separate waiver form for Defendant Christianson was not found. Defendant

2

represents that it was his intent to return his waiver and, although he can do no more than speculate,

3

the waiver must have been misplaced.

4
5

Regarding Defendant Leguria, she left employment with the County approximately three
years ago and service could not have been properly accepted on her behalf.

6

The Court finds that given all the circumstances, including the fact that Defendant

7

Christianson did execute and return a waiver for the Sheriff’s Department, good cause has been

8

shown pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d)(2). Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED

9

that:

10

1.

11

The orders to show cause why costs should not be taxed against Defendants
Christianson and Leguria, filed on April 26, 2012, are discharged;

12

2.

13

The Marshal’s requests for reimbursement of the cost of personal service, filed on
April 24, 2012, are denied; and

14

3.

15

The Clerk’s Office shall serve a copy of this order on the Marshal’s Sacramento
Office.

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18

Dated:
ie14hj

May 4, 2012

/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2