Carroll v. Schwarzenegger et al

Filing 76

MINUTE ORDER signed by District Judge Leslie E. Kobayashi on 3/22/12 GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 75 Motion for Extension. The Court DIRECTS the Clerks Office to send Plaintiff a copy of the Second Amended Complaint, as well as a copy of t he 1/23/12 Motion and the 2/23/12 Motion; and the Court GRANTS Plaintiff an extension until 4/9/12 to serve the 1/23/12 Motion and the 2/23/12 Motion and to file a declaration confirming that he served those motions on Defendant. Plaintiffs 3/19/12 Motion is DENIED in all other respects. (Meuleman, A)

MINUTES

CASE NUMBER:

CV 2:08-00408 LEK
ED Cal

CASE NAME:

Carroll v. Adevara, et al.

ATTYS FOR PLA:
ATTYS FOR DEFT:
INTERPRETER:

JUDGE:

Leslie E. Kobayashi

REPORTER:

DATE:

03/22/2012

TIME:

COURT ACTION: EO: COURT ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN
PART PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FILED MARCH 19, 2012
On February 29, 2012, this Court issued an entering order (“2/29/12 EO”)
directing pro se Plaintiff Vernon D. Carroll (“Plaintiff”) to serve a copy of the motion that
he filed on January 23, 2012 (“1/23/12 Motion”), [dkt. no. 70,] and a copy of the motion
that he filed on February 23, 2012 (“2/23/12 Motion”), [dkt. no. 73,] on Sampath
Suryadevara, who has been identified in this action as Defendant S. Sury Adevara
(“Defendant”). [Dkt. no. 74.] The Court ordered Plaintiff to file a declaration by March
21, 2012 clarifying whether he served the 1/23/12 Motion and the 2/23/12 Motion on
Defendant. The Court cautioned Plaintiff that, if he failed to serve the motions on
Defendant, the Court would deny the motions without prejudice.
On March 19, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion entitled “Motion For: Extension of
Time and Motion To: Request For Civil Complaint and Statements Facts on the Concerns
for Missing Property from 2008 at CSATF State Prison” (“3/19/12 Motion”). [Dkt. no.
75.] The Court construes the 3/19/12 Motion as a request for two copies of Plaintiff’s
Second Amended Complaint: one copy for Plaintiff’s records, and one copy that he can
mail to Defendant. Plaintiff also requests an extension of time until he receives a copy of
the Second Amended Complaint [filed 11/4/09 (dkt. no. 17)]. Although Plaintiff does not
specify what deadline he wants extended, the Court assumes that Plaintiff is referring to
the March 21, 2012 deadline set forth in the 2/29/12 EO.
First, Plaintiff does not need to serve the Second Amended Complaint on
Defendant. The United States Marshals Service completed service of the Second
Amended Complaint on Defendant on December 13, 2011. [Process Receipt and Return,

filed 1/24/12 (dkt. no. 71).] Plaintiff’s request for a copy of the Second Amended
Complaint to send to Defendant is therefore DENIED.
Second, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s request for a copy of the Second Amended
Complaint for his records. If Plaintiff wishes to attach copies of the Second Amended
Complaint to future court filings, he should make additional copies and retain one copy
for his own reference and use.
Third, although Plaintiff’s service of the 1/23/12 Motion and the 2/23/12 Motion
on Defendant does not require a copy of the Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiff was
apparently confused about the service of those motions, and the Court will grant Plaintiff
a brief extension. Plaintiff’s 3/19/12 Motion is therefore GRANTED insofar as Plaintiff
has until April 9, 2012 to: 1) serve the 1/23/12 Motion and the 2/23/12 Motion on
Defendant by mailing those motions to Defendant at 1771 North Romneya Drive #C,
Anaheim, CA 92801; and 2) file a declaration confirming that he has served the 1/23/12
Motion and the 2/23/12 Motion on Defendant.
The Court CAUTIONS Plaintiff that the Court will not grant any further
extensions and, if Plaintiff fails to serve the motions on Defendant and/or fails to file his
declaration confirming that he has served the motions on Defendant by April 9, 2012, the
Court will deny the 1/23/12 Motion and the 2/23/12 Motion without prejudice.
Finally, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s certificate of service attached to the 3/19/12
Motion indicates that Plaintiff did not serve the 3/19/12 Motion on Defendant. As this
Court pointed out in the 2/29/12 EO, even though Plaintiff is proceeding in forma
pauperis, it is Plaintiff’s responsibility to serve all motions, declarations, and other
documents, on Defendant until there is a ruling that Defendant is in default for
failure to appear. The Court CAUTIONS Plaintiff that, if Plaintiff files future motions
without the required service on Defendant, the Court will automatically deny the motion.
In conclusion, Plaintiff’s 3/19/12 Motion is HEREBY GRANTED IN PART AND
DENIED IN PART. The Motion is GRANTED insofar as:
1)

2)

The Court DIRECTS the Clerk’s Office to send Plaintiff a copy of the Second
Amended Complaint, as well as a copy of the 1/23/12 Motion and the 2/23/12
Motion; and
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff an extension until April 9, 2012 to serve the 1/23/12
Motion and the 2/23/12 Motion and to file a declaration confirming that he served
those motions on Defendant.

Plaintiff’s 3/19/12 Motion is DENIED in all other respects.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Submitted by: Warren N. Nakamura, Courtroom Manager