Torrence v. Hseuh et al
ORDER and ORDER to SHOW CAUSE signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 6/1/11 ORDERING that Counsel for defendants shall show cause, within 10 days, why sanctions should not be imposed based on the litigation coordinators interference with thi s courts orders; Counsel for defendants shall take all steps necessary to assist the United States Marshal in obtaining the mailing address for service of process on defendant J. Champion; Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of the 27 un executed summons, this courts 42 order, and a copy of the instant order, on Supervising Deputy Attorney General Monica N. Anderson; Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of the instant order on the USM; Should an address be provided, the USM shall, upon receipt of that address, take all steps necessary to personally serve defendant J. Champion in accordance with this courts 5/26/11 order. (cc USM, Monica Anderson)(Dillon, M)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
DEAVON E. TORRENCE,
No. 2:10-cv-1222 KJN P
F. HSEUH, et al.,
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel and in forma pauperis. On
November 10, 2010, the court determined that plaintiff’s complaint states a potentially
cognizable claim for relief against defendant J. Champion. Service directed to defendant J.
Champion was returned unexecuted, with an attached letter from the litigation coordinator at
California Medical Facility (“CMF”). The letter was dated February 7, 2011, from B.C.
Williams, CCII, Litigation Coordinator, CMF, regarding the waiver of service of summons and
complaint, indicating that B.C. Williams had mailed the “RVR” to Ms. Champion, but no
response was received. By order filed May 26, 2011, the U.S. Marshal was directed to contact
B.C. Williams and obtain Ms. Champion’s mailing address so that the U.S. Marshal could
execute personal service of process on J. Champion. The U.S. Marshal notified the court that the
CMF litigation coordinator refused to divulge Ms. Champion’s mailing address.
Pursuant to this court’s prior orders, if defendant did not return a waiver of service
of summons within sixty days from the date of mailing the request for waiver, the United States
Marshal was to personally serve process on defendant Champion, “command all necessary
assistance from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to execute
this order,” and “maintain the confidentiality of all information provided by the CDCR pursuant
to” that order. (Dkt. Nos. 13 & 42.)
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Counsel for defendants shall show cause, within ten days, why sanctions
should not be imposed based on the litigation coordinator’s interference with this court’s orders;
2. Counsel for defendants shall take all steps necessary to assist the United States
Marshal in obtaining the mailing address for service of process on defendant J. Champion, and
shall report to the court within ten days whether counsel has been able to provide a valid address
to the U.S. Marshal and, if not, why no address can be provided;
3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of the unexecuted summons
(dkt. no. 27), this court’s May 26, 2011 order (dkt. no. 42), and a copy of the instant order, on
Supervising Deputy Attorney General Monica N. Anderson;
4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of the instant order on the
United States Marshal; and
5. The U.S. Marshal shall maintain the confidentiality of any address provided by
counsel for defendants or Supervising Deputy Attorney General Anderson. Should an address be
provided, the U.S. Marshal shall, upon receipt of that address, take all steps necessary to
personally serve defendant J. Champion in accordance with this court’s May 26, 2011 order.
DATED: June 1, 2011
KENDALL J. NEWMAN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?