Alford v. Dang, et al.

Filing 28

ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 8/09/17 ORDERING that The Clerk shall send plaintiff a blank summons, one USM-285 form and instructions for service of process on defendant Clough. Within 30 days, plaintiff shall return the att ached Notice of Submission of documents with the completed blank summons and USM-285 form, which shall be completed to include a valid address for service of process on defendant Clough. No extensions of time to comply with this order will be grante d. Failure to comply with this order will result in the denial of plaintiff'smotion for leave to file late objections and the confirmation of the 23 03/14/17 judgment. The court will not reconsider the 23 03/20/17 judgment or reopen this action unless plaintiff timely files the completed summons and USM-285 form. (Benson, A.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TRACY FIDEL ALFORD,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

v.

No. 2:14-cv-0714 KJM EFB P

ORDER

LAM DANG, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

18

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

19

Judge as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

20

On July 28, 2016, the magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s amended complaint

21

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The magistrate judge found service appropriate as to plaintiff’s Eighth

22

Amendment claim against defendant Clough, and granted plaintiff thirty days to either return

23

documents necessary to effect service of process on defendant Clough, or to file an amended

24

complaint to cure the deficiencies identified in the other claims. ECF No. 20. The order warned

25

plaintiff that failure to comply would result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.

26

The time for acting passed and plaintiff did not return the documents necessary for service, file an

27

amended complaint, or otherwise respond to the magistrate judge’s order. Accordingly, on

28

September 9, 2016, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations for dismissal, which
1

1

were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings

2

and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff did not file objections. On

3

March 13, 2017, this court adopted the findings and recommendations and dismissed the case.

4

On March 20, 2017, plaintiff requested leave to file late objections to the

5

magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations, along with objections. ECF Nos. 24, 25. He

6

also filed a Notice of Submission of Documents, intended to assist the United States Marshal with

7

effecting service of process on defendant Clough. ECF No. 27. The documents returned by

8

plaintiff, however, do not include an address for service of process on defendant Clough. Id.

9

Plaintiff’s request for leave to file late objections is governed by Fed. R. Civ. P.

10

6(b)(1), which requires a showing of “excusable neglect” in order to support the requested

11

extension. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b)(1)(B). In addition, since judgment has been entered, the

12

request will be construed as a request for relief from judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Here,

13

the same standard applies under both rules.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

To determine whether a party’s failure to meet a deadline
constitutes “excusable neglect,” courts must apply a four-factor
equitable test, examining: (1) the danger of prejudice to the
opposing party; (2) the length of the delay and its potential impact
on the proceedings; (3) the reason for the delay; and (4) whether the
movant acted in good faith. Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick
Assocs. Ltd. P'ship, 507 U.S. 380, 395, 113 S.Ct. 1489, 123 L.Ed.2d
74 (1993); Briones v. Riviera Hotel & Casino, 116 F.3d 379, 381
(9th Cir.1997) (adopting this test for consideration of Rule 60(b)
motions). Through other decisions, including Bateman v. U.S.
Postal Serv., 231 F.3d 1220 (9th Cir.2000), and Pincay v. Andrews,
389 F.3d 853 (9th Cir.2004) (en banc), we have further clarified
how courts should apply this test.
In Bateman, we concluded that when considering a Rule 60(b)
motion a district court abuses its discretion by failing to engage in
the four-factor Pioneer/Briones equitable balancing test. Bateman,
231 F.3d at 1223–24.
Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1261 (9th Cir. 2010).
Here, plaintiff has failed to comply in full with the magistrate judge’s July 28,

26

2016 order. Specifically, the documents he provided for service of process on defendant Clough

27

contain only the name of the defendant and no address for service of process. The court will give

28

plaintiff one final opportunity to complete a summons and a USM-285 form for service of process
2

1

on defendant Clough with a complete address the U.S. Marshal may use to effect service. The

2

court will not reconsider the March 14, 2017 judgment or reopen this action unless plaintiff

3

timely files the completed summons and USM-285 form. Moreover, the court will set a thirty

4

day deadline for plaintiff to return the completed documents, and no extension of time will be

5

granted.

6

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

7

1.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff a blank summons, one

8

USM-285 form and instructions for service of process on defendant Clough. Within thirty

9

days from the date of this order plaintiff shall return the attached Notice of Submission of

10

documents with the completed blank summons and USM-285 form, which shall be

11

completed to include a valid address for service of process on defendant Clough.

12

2.

No extensions of time to comply with this order will be granted.

13

3.

Failure to comply with this order will result in the denial of plaintiff’s

14

motion for leave to file late objections and the confirmation of the judgment entered in

15

this action on March 14, 2017.

16

DATED: August 9, 2017.

17
18

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TRACY FIDEL ALFORD,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:14-cv-0714 KJM EFB P

v.

ORDER

LAM DANG, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18

Plaintiff submits the following documents in compliance with the court's order filed
_____________________:

19

____

completed summons form

20

____

completed USM-285 form

21
22
23

DATED:

24
________________________________
Plaintiff

25
26
27
28
1