Robinson v. Prisil, et al.

Filing 35

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 7/10/2017 ORDERING the Clerk to alter the docket to reflect that defendant "Yu" is "Yuo", defendant "Angie" is "Angie Jin", and defendant "Janet" is "Janet Meyer-Mitchell". The court's 33 order directing defendants Yuo, Jin and Meyer-Mitchell to submit the costs of personal service to the USM is VACATED. (cc: USM) (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ROOSEVELT J. ROBINSON,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:14-cv-790 MCE AC P

v.

ORDER

PRISIL, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
Defendants Yuo, Jin, and and Meyer-Mitchell1 were served by the United States Marshal

17
18

on May 11, 2017. ECF Nos. 29 & 32. The Marshal subsequently filed a request for

19

reimbursement for costs of personal service (ECF No. 31) after indicating that these defendants

20

failed to respond to a waiver of service form mailed on February 9, 2017 (ECF No. 32). The

21

court ordered defendants to submit the reimbursement unless, within fourteen days, they filed a

22

written statement which demonstrated good cause for their failure to waive service. ECF No. 33.

23

Defendants have filed a reply to the court’s order. For the reasons stated below, the court will

24

vacate its previous order requiring defendants to submit reimbursement.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(d)(1) imposes a duty on defendants “to avoid

25
26
27
28

1

Plaintiff named these defendants as “Yu”, “Angie”, and “Janet” in his amended complaint and
the court directed service for them based on this information. See ECF Nos. 13 & 20. The Clerk
of Court will be directed to update the docket to reflect their correct names.
1

1

unnecessary expenses of serving the summons.” Rule 4(d)(2) requires that the court tax costs of

2

service of process on any defendant who fails to show good cause for failing to sign and return a

3

timely waiver of service. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(2). Here, defendants appear to argue that they

4

never received the waiver forms. They note that the requests for waiver were served at Solano

5

County Jail – the location specified by plaintiff in his complaint – where each defendant no

6

longer worked at the time of the service attempt. Defendants’ counsel states that Yuo last worked

7

at the jail in June of 2014, Jin last worked there in October of 2016, and Meyer-Mitchell last

8

worked there in November of 2014. ECF No. 34 at 2. Good cause for excusing failure to waive

9

service exists where the defendants never received the request for waiver. See Double S Truck

10

Line, Inc. v. Frozen Food Express, 171 F.R.D. 251, 253 (D. Minn. 1997) (citing 1993 Advisory

11

Committee Notes to Rule 4).

12

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:

13

1.

The Clerk of Court shall alter the docket to reflect that:

14

a.

Defendant “Yu” is appropriately “Yuo”;

15

b.

Defendant “Angie” is appropriately “Angie Jin”; and

16

c.

Defendant “Janet” is appropriately “Janet Meyer-Mitchell.”

17

2.

The Court’s order directing defendants Yuo, Jin, and Meyer-Mitchell to submit the

18

costs of personal service to the US Marshal (ECF No. 33) is VACATED.

19

DATED: July 10, 2017

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2