Blaine v. California Health Care Facility et al

Filing 38

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 03/31/15 granting 37 Motion for reimbursement filed by the U.S. Marshal. Within 14 days from the filing date of this order defendant Sabin shall pay the U.S. Marshal the sum of $140.08, unl ess that time defendant files a written statement with the court showing good cause for his failure to waive service. The court does not intend to extend this 14 day period. The clerk of the court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the U.S. Marshal and defendant Sabin. (Plummer, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 VANCE BLAINE, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 No. 2:13-cv-2163 KJM AC P v. ORDER CALIFORNIA HEALTH CARE FACILITY, et al., Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action seeking 18 19 relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 21, 2014, the court ordered the United States Marshal to serve process upon 20 21 the defendants in this case. ECF No. 21. The Marshal was directed to attempt to secure a waiver 22 of service by mail before attempting personal service on any defendant. If a waiver of service 23 was not returned within sixty days, the Marshal was directed to effect personal service in 24 accordance with the provisions of Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 28 U.S.C. § 25 566(c), without prepayment of costs. The Marshal was also directed to file the return of service 26 with evidence of any attempt to secure a waiver of service and with evidence of all costs 27 subsequently incurred in effecting personal service. See generally ECF No. 21. 28 ///// 1 1 On March 25, 2015, the Marshal filed a return of service with a USM-285 form showing 2 total charges of $140.08 for effecting personal service on defendant Sabin. See ECF No. 36. The 3 return shows that a waiver of service form was mailed to the defendant on October 24, 2014, and 4 that no response was received. On February 13, 12015, the Marshal designated this matter 5 appropriate for personal service. A notation on the return indicates that defendant Sabin was no 6 longer employed at “CDC” as of March 20, 2105; however, personal service was effected on 7 Sabin on March 24, 2015, apparently at the California Medical Facility. See ECF No. 36. 8 Rule 4(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides, in pertinent part, as follows: 9 An individual, corporation, or association that is subject to service under Rule 4(e), (f), or (h) has a duty to avoid unnecessary expenses of serving the summons. . . . 10 11 12 If a defendant located within the United States fails, without good cause, to sign and return a waiver requested by a plaintiff located within the United States, the court must impose on the defendant: 13 (A) the expenses later incurred in making service; and 14 (B) the reasonable expenses, including attorney’s fees, of any motion required to collect those service expenses. 15 16 Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(1), (2)(A), (B). 17 Pursuant to this authority, and the information provided by the Marshal, the court finds 18 that defendant Sabin was given the opportunity required by Rule 4(d) to waive service and failed 19 to comply with the request. 20 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 21 1. The request for reimbursement filed by the U.S. Marshal, ECF No. 37, is granted. 22 2. Within fourteen days from the filing date of this order defendant Sabin shall pay the 23 U.S. Marshal the sum of $140.08, unless within that time defendant files a written statement with 24 the court showing good cause for his failure to waive service. The court does not intend to extend 25 this fourteen-day period. 26 //// 27 //// 28 //// 2 1 2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the U.S. Marshal and 2 defendant Sabin. 3 DATED: March 31, 2015 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?