Quillar v. CA Dept Corrections, et al

Filing 127

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 1/12/2012 ORDERING that defendent Rick Hill is deemed to have appeared in this case, and DAG Gregory G. Gomez shall be entered as attorney of record for defendant Rick Hill; and defendant Hill has 14 days to file an answer or otherwise respond to the first amended complaint.(Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9

LEE V. QUILLAR

10
11
12

Plaintiff,

No. CIV S-04-1203 KJM CKD P

vs.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT
OF CORRECTIONS, et al.

13
Defendant.
14

ORDER
/

15

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action under 42

16

U.S.C. § 1983. On August 9, 2011, the court ruled that the only proper defendant to the single

17

claim remaining in the first amended complaint, which is the operative pleading, is the warden of

18

the correctional institution where plaintiff is incarcerated.1 See Order and Findings and

19

Recommendations at 2 (Docket No. 117). The court substituted Rick Hill, the warden of Folsom

20

State Prison, as the defendant in this case and ordered the attorney representing the other, now

21

former defendants to state whether he would accept service on behalf of the warden. The court

22
23
24
25
26

1

The only claim still extant in this case is plaintiff’s request for an injunction ordering the
expungement from his C-file numerous disciplinary findings that were levied against him for
violating prison rules pertaining to facial hair. The tenets of plaintiff’s Muslim faith require him
to wear a beard, and plaintiff initially included claims that his right to free exercise of religion
had been infringed. The rules that plaintiff violated have since been amended, but the Ninth
Circuit has ruled that this court has Article III jurisdiction to hear his claim for expungement of
the rules violations from his record. See USCA Memorandum (Docket No. 87).
1

1

further stated that “[i]f counsel will not accept service, the court will order the warden served.

2

The court will establish a scheduling order as soon as the warden appears.” Id. Counsel for the

3

defendants responded to the court’s order and stated that he would accept service. See Docket

4

No. 118.

5

On October 5, 2011, plaintiff filed an interlocutory appeal of the court’s order

6

denying his request for expansion of a preliminary injunction and a protective order. The Ninth

7

Circuit summarily affirmed the district court’s decision on January 9, 2011. Accordingly, this

8

case is ready to proceed on an ordinary scheduling track.

9

The court construes counsel’s agreement to accept service as an appearance

10

sufficient to forego formal service of the first amended complaint on defendant Hill. There is no

11

question that the warden of Folsom State Prison has, through his counsel, received notice of the

12

claim asserted against him in his official capacity in the first amended complaint. Moreover,

13

California law, which governs the process by which an individual is served in this court,2

14

recognizes an attorney’s written agreement to accept service on behalf of a defendant as a general

15

appearance that relieves a plaintiff of the obligation to complete service. See General Ins. Co. v.

16

Superior Court, 15 Cal.3d 449, 453 (Cal.1975) (stating that “[a] written stipulation between

17

attorneys recognizing jurisdiction of the court over the parties constitutes a [g]eneral appearance

18

by defendant. ... Having received [defendant’s] written stipulation accepting service, plaintiff

19

cannot have been expected to then commence service, to complete service not commenced, or to

20

return service”). Applying this rule of state law to this case will further judicial economy by

21

avoiding the unnecessary formality of requiring the plaintiff to provide service documents from

22

prison, and it is consistent with the general principle that in federal court, “[d]efendant need not

23

respond directly to the complaint in order to be deemed to have made an appearance. An

24

appearance may arise by implication from defendant’s seeking, taking or agreeing to some steps

25
26

2

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1).
2

1

or proceedings in the cause beneficial to himself or detrimental to plaintiff other than one

2

contesting only the jurisdiction.” Charles Alan Wright and Arthur R. Miller, 10A Federal

3

Practice and Procedure § 2686 (internal quotations omitted).

4

The court finds that defendant Hill, in his official capacity as warden of Folsom

5

State Prison, has appeared in this case through his counsel’s representation to the court that he

6

would accept service on behalf of the defendant. In keeping with its order of August 9, 2011, the

7

court will put this case on an ordinary litigation schedule, first allowing defendant Hill fourteen

8

days in which to file an answer or otherwise respond to the sole claim remaining in the first

9

amended complaint. If the defendant files an answer, the court will immediately thereafter enter

10

an order scheduling discovery and other pre-trial deadlines.

11

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

12

1. Defendant Rick Hill is deemed to have appeared in this case, and Deputy

13

Attorney General Gregory G. Gomez shall be entered as attorney of record for defendant Rick

14

Hill.

15
16

2. Defendant Hill has fourteen days from the entry of this order in which to file an
answer or otherwise respond to the first amended complaint.

17

Dated: January 12, 2012

18

_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23

3
quil1203.ord

24
25
26
3