Ransom v. McCabe et al

Filing 97

ORDER DECLINING to ADOPT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and ORDERING the Clerk of the Court to Accept and Process Previously Submitted USM-285 Form 95 signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 3/8/2018: 28-Day Deadline; This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings consistent with this order. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

BRYAN E. RANSOM,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

E. CLARK, et al.,

15
16

No. 1:13-cv-01779-DAD-GSA

Defendants.

ORDER DECLINING TO ADOPT FINDINGS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND
ORDERING THE CLERK OF THE COURT
TO ACCEPT AND PROCESS PREVIOUSLY
SUBMITTED USM-285 FORM
(Doc. No. 95)

17
18

Plaintiff Bryan E. Ransom is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

19

with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United

20

States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

21

On December 7, 2017, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and

22

recommendations recommending that this action be dismissed due to plaintiff’s failure to comply

23

with the court’s order of November 2, 2017. (Doc. No. 95.) Plaintiff was granted fourteen (14)

24

days in which to file objections to the findings and recommendations. Plaintiff has not filed

25

objections and the time in which to do so has now passed.

26

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, the

27

undersigned has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire

28

file, the undersigned declines to adopt the findings and recommendations.
1

1

The confusion rampant throughout this case has been introduced by all sides here. On

2

April 8, 2016, defendants moved for summary judgment on the grounds that plaintiff had failed to

3

exhaust his administrative remedies prior to filing suit, but sought summary judgment on only

4

certain of plaintiff’s claims. (Doc. No. 72.) The then-assigned magistrate judge recommended on

5

August 23, 2016 that the motion be granted but that only those claims specifically listed in the

6

motion for summary judgment be dismissed from the action. (Doc. No. 79.) Defendants objected

7

to this, asserting they had moved, or intended to move, for summary judgment on all of plaintiff’s

8

claims. (Doc. No. 81.) The undersigned considered these objections, but found defendants had

9

not clearly moved for summary judgment on all of plaintiff’s claims. (Doc. No. 82.)

10

Accordingly, on November 9, 2016, the undersigned adopted the findings and recommendations

11

and referred the matter back to a newly-assigned magistrate judge, as the prior magistrate judge

12

had, by this point, retired. (Id.)

13

The newly-assigned magistrate judge then noted a different issue with this case related to

14

service, namely that plaintiff had named two different defendants with the exact same name, a

15

correctional officer named J. Faldon and a nurse named J. Faldon. (Doc. No. 83.) Defense

16

counsel had already appeared in this matter representing a J. Faldon, but it was unclear which J.

17

Faldon defense counsel represented, or whether counsel represented both defendants by that

18

name. (Id.) Therefore, the magistrate judge sought clarification from defense counsel on August

19

15, 2017 as to the identity of their client. (Id.) On September 14, 2017, defense counsel

20

responded, explaining that Correctional Officer Faldon had appeared in the case and that defense

21

counsel did not represent Nurse Faldon. (Doc. No. 86.) Therefore, on September 15, 2017, the

22

magistrate judge ordered that service on Nurse Faldon was also appropriate and that plaintiff be

23

sent service documents for completion so that the United States Marshals could serve Nurse

24

Faldon. (Doc. No. 86.) Plaintiff was required to return those service documents within thirty

25

days. (Id.)

26

Plaintiff timely submitted a USM-285 form, completed and with several additional

27

required copies, along with three copies of the first amended complaint, all of which were

28

received by the court on October 10, 2017. (Doc. No. 93.) On November 2, 2017, the magistrate
2

1

judge issued an order noting that plaintiff had returned the necessary service documents to the

2

court, but had not returned precisely the same version of the USM-285 form that had been sent to

3

him. (Doc. No. 94.) In particular, plaintiff had returned a different version of the same USM-285

4

form1 with the aforementioned photocopies, rather than the version the court had sent, which

5

included carbon copies that would make photocopying unnecessary. Because of this, the

6

magistrate judge directed plaintiff in the November 2, 2017 order to return the specific USM-285

7

form the court had sent, with carbon copies, within fourteen days. (Id.)

8
9

Plaintiff did not return this original form to the court, and on December 7, 2017, the
magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that this action be

10

dismissed in its entirety due to plaintiff’s failure to return the specific USM-285 form, with

11

carbon copies, as ordered. (Doc. No. 95.) This recommendation is not appropriate within the

12

context of this case and will be rejected.

13

In order for a court to dismiss a claim for failure to comply with a court order, the court

14

must weigh the following five factors: “(1) the public’s interest in expeditious resolution of

15

litigation; (2) the court’s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to

16

defendants/respondents; (4) the availability of less drastic alternatives; and (5) the public policy

17

favoring disposition of cases on their merits.” Pagtalunan v. Galaza, 291 F.3d 639, 642 (9th Cir.

18

2002). Even if some of these factors may weigh in favor of dismissal here, the fourth factor

19

overwhelmingly does not. There are numerous less drastic alternatives means to address

20

plaintiff’s failure to specifically comply with the court’s order than the dismissal of the case in its

21

entirety.

22

The least drastic alternative here—and the one the court will ultimately direct—is for the

23

court to simply accept the photocopied USM-285 form which plaintiff returned, rather than

24

insisting that a version with carbon copies be submitted. The purpose of the USM-285 form is to

25

provide the U.S. Marshals Service with necessary information so that they may carry out their

26

1

27
28

It appears from reviewing these forms that the one returned by plaintiff is indeed a more recent
version of the USM-285 form that was revised in November 2013, whereas the one sent to him by
the court was one last revised in December 2008. The two forms appear to be substantively
identical.
3

1

duty to serve defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3); Puett v. Blandford, 912 F.2d 270, 275 (9th

2

Cir. 1990) (“[A]n incarcerated pro se plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis is entitled to rely on

3

the U.S. Marshal for service of the summons and complaint . . . .”). The court has compared the

4

form returned by plaintiff with a blank version of the one initially forwarded to him. There is no

5

apparent reason the version of the USM-285 form plaintiff provided was insufficient. It does not

6

lack any information required by the U.S. Marshals to serve the defendant. Indeed, as mentioned,

7

the forms appear to be substantively identical. Moreover, both versions of the form indicate

8

specifically that “prior editions may be used.” Dismissing this entire case, which has now been

9

pending before the court for more than four years, because plaintiff returned the correct form—

10
11

albeit a different version of that form—is simply not appropriate in the undersigned’s view.
The next less drastic alternative would be for the court to dismiss only Nurse Faldon from

12

the case. Aside from the claims alleged against Nurse Faldon, the action is proceeding on, at the

13

very least, Eighth Amendment medical care claims against defendants Strome, Sao, Gill, and

14

Rouch, who have appeared in and litigated this matter. (See Doc. No. 82 at 2 n.3.) Additionally,

15

state law claims remain pending against even more defendants. (Id. at 3.) It would be

16

inappropriate to dismiss this action against all defendants when plaintiff has adequately served all

17

but one of those defendants.

18

In sum, the undersigned declines to adopt the findings and recommendations. Plaintiff’s

19

USM-285 form will be accepted, and the Clerk of the Court will be directed to provide the U.S.

20

Marshals with this form so that they may attempt to serve defendant Nurse J. Faldon. In the event

21

that the U.S. Marshals cannot use the USM-285 form provided because they require one with

22

carbon copies instead of photocopies, the Clerk of the Court is directed to transcribe the

23

information on the USM-285 form submitted by plaintiff onto the appropriate USM-285 form,

24

and then submit that form to the U.S. Marshals.

25

Despite the conclusion reached above, the court is concerned that there is some reason to

26

believe that plaintiff may have abandoned his prosecution of this action. Plaintiff did not respond

27

to the magistrate judge’s orders to show cause of August 16, 2017 and September 19, 2017.

28

Although plaintiff did submit some documents for purposes of service of defendant Nurse Faldon
4

1

(see Doc. No. 93) on October 10, 2017, he filed no objections to the pending findings and

2

recommendations of December 7, 2017, in which the assigned magistrate judge recommended

3

dismissal of this entire action. Indeed, other than those documents submitted by plaintiff with

4

respect to service on Nurse Faldon, it may be that the last document filed by plaintiff in this

5

action was his opposition to a motion to dismiss he filed on March 12, 2015, approximately three

6

years ago. Under these circumstances, while the undersigned will not at this time adopt the

7

recommendation that this action be dismissed in its entirety, the court will require plaintiff to file

8

a written notice with the court that he wishes to continue to prosecute this case or dismiss it.

9

For the reasons set forth above:

10

1) The court declines to adopt the findings and recommendations of December 7, 2017

11

(Doc. No. 95). Plaintiff’s USM-285 form will be accepted, and the Clerk of the Court

12

is directed to provide the U.S. Marshals with that form so that they may attempt to

13

serve defendant Nurse J. Faldon. In the event that the U.S. Marshals cannot use the

14

USM-285 form provided by plaintiff because they require one with carbon copies

15

instead of photocopies, the Clerk of the Court is directed to transcribe the information

16

on the USM-285 form submitted by plaintiff onto the appropriate USM-285 form, and

17

then submit that form to the U.S. Marshals;

18

2) Within twenty-eight (28) days of service of this order plaintiff is directed to file and

19

serve a notice in writing indicating whether he wishes to continue to prosecute this

20

action or instead wishes to voluntarily dismiss it. Any failure on plaintiff’s part to file

21

the written notice indicating his intentions as required by this order will result in the

22

dismissal of this action in its entirety due to his failure to prosecute and failure to

23

abide by the court’s orders; and

24

/////

25

/////

26

/////

27

/////

28

/////
5

1

3) This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings

2
3
4

consistent with this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 8, 2018
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6