Chester v. King, et al.

Filing 23

ORDER DENYING Motion for Re-Service of Process as Moot 20 , signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 11/28/2018. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RAYMOND D. CHESTER,

12

Plaintiff,

13

vs.

14

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RESERVICE OF PROCESS AS MOOT
(ECF No. 20.)

AUDREY KING, et al.,

15

1:16-cv-01257-DAD-GSA-PC

Defendants.

16
17

I.

BACKGROUND

18

Raymond D. Chester (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma

19

pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On August 25, 2016, Plaintiff

20

filed the Complaint commencing this action. (ECF No. 1.) This case now proceeds with

21

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint filed on August 31, 2017, against defendants Audrey King

22

(Executive Director), Jagsir Sandhu, M.D. (Chief Medical Officer), Bradley Powers, M.D. (Unit

23

Physician), and Robert Withrow, M.D. (Medical Director of Coalinga State Hospital), on

24

Plaintiff’s medical claims under the Due Process Clause. (ECF No. 10.)

25

On August 23, 2018, the court issued an order directing the United States Marshal

26

(Marshal) to serve process on Defendants in this action. (ECF No. 17.) On September 17, 2018,

27

the Marshal filed returns of service unexecuted for defendants Audrey King and Jagsir Sandhu.

28

(ECF Nos. 18, 19.)
1

1

On October 1, 2018, Plaintiff filed a motion for re-service of process upon defendants

2

Audrey King and Jagsir Sandhu by the Marshal. (ECF No. 20.)

3

II.

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

4

Plaintiff seeks re-service of process upon defendants King and Sandhu because the

5

Marshal reported that they could not locate these defendants at Coalinga State Hospital; that these

6

defendants were retired in 2015; and, no forwarding information was available from the CDCR.1

7

(ECF Nos. 18, 19.) Plaintiff asserts that the court should have directed the Marshal to seek

8

information from the DSH,2 not the CDCR.

9

Plaintiff’s motion is moot because on November 21, 2018, all of the Defendants -- Audrey

10

King, Jagsir Sandhu, Bradley Powers, and Robert Withrow -- filed waivers of service in this

11

action, indicating that they have received a copy of the complaint and their answers or motions

12

under Rule 12 are due “within 60 days after 11/20/18.” (ECF Nos. 18, 19.) Therefore, further

13

service is unnecessary and Plaintiff’s motion shall be denied as moot.

14

III.

CONCLUSION

15

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion requesting

16

re-service of process upon defendants King and Sandhu, filed on October 1, 2018, is DENIED

17

as moot.

18
19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

November 28, 2018

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27

1

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

2

Department of State Hospitals.

28
2