Baldhosky v. Hubbard et al

Filing 59

ORDER Denying Motion for Order to Serve Defendants by Substitution of Service 36 , signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 11/27/16. Telephonic Status Conference set for 12/22/2016 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 6 (MJS) before Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RAYMOND BALDHOSKY ,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
SUSAN HUBBARD, et al.,

15

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:12-cv-01200-LJO-MJS (PC)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR ORDER
TO SERVE DEFENDANTS BY
SUBSTITUTION OF SERVICE
(ECF No. 36)
CLERK TO TERMINATE ECF No. 44

16
Telephonic Status Conference
Regarding Service: December 22, 2016 at
10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 6 (MJS)

17
18
19
20
21

I.

Procedural History

22

Plaintiff is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action

23

brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 4, 2016, the Court screened Plaintiff’s

24

third amended complaint and found that it stated cognizable claims against ten

25

defendants: Dr. Gonzalez, Dr. Nguyen, Dr. Metts, Physician’s Assistant L. Peters,

26

Physician’s Assistant T. Byers, Nurse T. Grossi, Nurse Ruff, Nurse Indindes, and Nurse

27

Amanda Kaylor. (ECF No. 31.)

28
1

1

On May 12, 2016, the United States Marshals Service was ordered to initiate

2

service on the defendants. (ECF No. 33.) Defendants Gonzalez, Kaylor, and Metts

3

waived service. (ECF Nos. 39.) They then filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a

4

claim. (ECF No. 40.) The motion is pending.

5

Duc Nguyen waived service on behalf of Defendant Nguyen. (ECF No. 51.) Mr.

6

Nguyen then moved pro se to quash service on the grounds that he mistakenly waived

7

service and he is not the Defendant Nguyen named in the complaint. (ECF No. 55.) This

8

motion also is pending.

9

Waivers of service for Defendants Peters, Byers, Grossi, Indindes, and Dunn

10

were returned unexecuted. (ECF Nos. 45, 46, 56.) According to the Marshals Service,

11

Defendants Dunn and Indindes no longer work for the California Department of

12

Corrections and Rehabilitation. Defendants Peters, Byers, and Grossi were contract

13

employees and are no longer employed with the contracting company.

14
15

No waiver was returned for Defendant Ruff. However, the Marshals service has
informed the Court that her waiver also was returned unexecuted.

16

Plaintiff has filed a motion seeking to serve the remaining defendants through

17

substituted service at their last known place of business, i.e., the California Substance

18

Abuse Treatment Facility in Corcoran, California. (ECF No. 36.) Defendants Gonzalez,

19

Kaylor, and Metts filed a response. (ECF No. 42.) Plaintiff filed a reply, stating that

20

Gonzalez, Kaylor, and Metts do not have standing to oppose the motion on behalf of the

21

absent defendants.1 (ECF No. 44.)

22

II.

Legal Standard

23

In cases involving a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis, the Marshal, upon

24

order of the Court, shall serve the summons and the complaint.2 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d);

25
26
27
28

1

Plaintiff’s reply was docketed as a motion. (ECF No. 44.) The Clerk’s Office will be directed to terminate
ECF No. 44 because it is not a motion.
2
Defendants imply that Plaintiff is not entitled to service by the U.S. Marshal because he is no longer
incarcerated. (ECF No. 42 at 2.) However, the ability to utilize the Marshals Service derives from Plaintiff’s
pauper status, not his incarceration.

2

1

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3). “[A]n incarcerated pro se plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis is

2

entitled to rely on the U.S. Marshals for service of the summons and complaint and [he]

3

should not be penalized by having his action dismissed for failure to effect service where

4

the U.S. Marshal or the court clerk has failed to perform his duties.” Walker v. Sumner,

5

14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994) (internal quotations and citation omitted), overruled

6

on other grounds by Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472 (1995). “So long as the prisoner

7

has furnished the information necessary to identify the defendant, the marshal’s failure

8

to effect service is automatically good cause” for extending the time for service. Walker,

9

14 F.3d at 1422 (internal quotations and citation omitted). However, where a pro se

10

plaintiff fails to provide the Marshal with accurate and sufficient information to effect

11

service of the summons and complaint, the Court’s sua sponte dismissal of the unserved

12

defendants is appropriate. Walker, 14 F.3d at 1421-22.

13

Waivers of service may be sent to the individual defendant or to an agent

14

authorized to receive service pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(h). Fed. R.

15

Civ. P 4(d)(1)(A). Personal service may be undertaken in a number of ways. Fed. R. Civ.

16

P. 4(e). The summons and complaint may be delivered personally to the defendant or

17

the defendant’s authorized agent or left at the defendant’s dwelling or usual place of

18

above. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(2). Alternatively, a defendant may be served by “following

19

state law for serving a summons in an action brought in courts of general jurisdiction in

20

the state where the district court is located or where service is made.” Fed. R. Civ. P

21

4(e)(1).

22

California law is similar. A summons may be served personally on the individual.

23

Cal. Code Civ. P. § 415.10. Alternatively, “a summons may be served by leaving a copy

24

of the summons and complaint during usual office hours in his or her office or, if no

25

physical address is known, at his or her usual mailing address” or “by leaving a copy of

26

the summons and complaint at the person’s dwelling house, usual place of abode, usual

27

place of business, or usual mailing address.” Cal Code. Civ. P. § 415.20.

28
3

1

III.

Discussion

2

At the outset, the Court notes that more than ninety days have passed since the

3

Marshals Service was ordered to serve Defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).

4

Nonetheless, the Court concludes there is good cause for extending this deadline.

5

Plaintiff has diligently attempted to serve Defendants. Dismissal at this juncture is

6

unwarranted. The Court will provide Plaintiff with an opportunity to be heard on the issue

7

of dismissal if and when it appears that all reasonable efforts to serve Defendants have

8

been exhausted.

9

Plaintiff is advised, however, that his current efforts to effectuate service are

10

somewhat misplaced. As stated, it is Plaintiff’s obligation to provide the Marshals Service

11

with sufficient information to identify the Defendants. Walker, 14 F.3d at 1422. With

12

regard to the unserved Defendants, he has not done so. Absent further information, it

13

appears the Marshals Service is unable to locate and properly identify the individuals

14

Plaintiff wishes to serve.

15

Nor may the Defendants be served by delivering the summons to the Defendants’

16

last known business address, as Plaintiff suggests. Because Defendants are no longer

17

employed at that address and do not utilize it as a regular place of business, such

18

service would not be effective under either federal or California law.

19

The Court is cognizant that Plaintiff has limited, if any, ability to identify and locate

20

these Defendants absent Court intervention. In such circumstances, the Court may open

21

discovery for the limited purpose of identifying the Defendants with sufficient specificity

22

to allow Plaintiff to locate them. See Wakefield v. Thompson, 177 F.3d 1160, 1163 (9th

23

Cir. 1999). Plaintiff may be entitled to subpoena the California Department of Corrections

24

and Rehabilitation and/or the contract employees’ employer. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45. Such

25

subpoenas may entitle Plaintiff to a broad range of personal identifying information.

26

Alternatively, the Office of the Attorney General, who represents Defendants

27

Gonzalez, Kaylor, and Metts in this action, may agree to provide some of this information

28
4

1

voluntarily. For example, defense counsel may agree to provide these Defendants’

2

current addresses for service of process, either directly to Plaintiff or to the Court in

3

camera.3 Or, counsel may agree to provide Plaintiff with sufficient information to attempt

4

to locate Defendants on his own, such as the Defendants’ full names and last known

5

addresses.

6

In light of these considerations, the Court will set the matter for a telephonic status

7

conference to discuss service of process and to attempt to resolve these issues.

8

IV.

9

Conclusion and Order
Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff’s motion for order to serve defendants by substitution of service

10
11

(ECF No. 36) is DENIED;

12

2. The matter is set for a telephonic status conference on December 22, 2016

13

at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 6 (MJS).

14

3. The parties may participate in the hearing by calling [phone] and

15

then entering access code 4446176#.

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18

Dated:

November 27, 2016

/s/

19

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3

In the Court’s experience, the Office of the Attorney General frequently is able to locate former
employees, including contract employees, with a modicum of effort.

5