Williams v. Romero et al
Filing
24
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 07/31/18 ORDERING that within 20 days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall file an addendum to his Motion for U.S. Marshal to Effect Service. In that addendum, plaintiff shall explain whether his attempt to secure waiver of service met the following requirements of Rule 4(d): (1) plaintiff sent a separate notice, two waiver forms, a copy of the complaint, and a stamped, self-addressed envelope to each individual defendant; and (2) plaintiff provided each defendant with a copy of the appropriate Waiver of Service of Summons form.(Plummer, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
LANCE WILLIAMS,
12
No. 2:17-cv-1884 TLN DB P
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
ROMERO, et al.,
15
ORDER
Defendants.
16
17
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
18
Plaintiff alleges defendants subjected him to excessive force and were deliberately indifferent to
19
his medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. On March 5, 2018, the court denied
20
plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis because plaintiff had accrued “three strikes” under
21
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). On March 27, 2018, plaintiff paid the filing fee to proceed with this case.
22
In an order filed April 6, 2018, the court informed plaintiff that he must complete service
23
of process in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 within sixty days. (ECF No. 13.)
24
Plaintiff was provided with summonses for purposes of service of process.
25
On May 29, 2018, plaintiff moved the court for an order directing the U.S. Marshal to
26
effect service for him under Rule 4(c)(3). Plaintiff argued that because he is indigent and
27
incarcerated, he is unable to pay the $120 fee required by the Sheriff’s office to serve the
28
summonses and complaint. (ECF No. 19.) Noting that plaintiff did not appear to have attempted
1
1
to secure a waiver of service under Rule 4(d), the court denied plaintiff’s motion without
2
prejudice. (ECF No. 20.)
3
On July 18, 2018, plaintiff filed a renewed motion for assistance in serving his complaint.
4
(ECF No. 23.) Plaintiff states that he sent waivers of service to defendants on June 14, 2018. He
5
attaches a copy of the waiver request he sent. However, plaintiff does not explain whether he
6
followed all the requirements of Rule 4(d). Plaintiff’s waiver forms indicate that he provided
7
defendants with a copy of the complaint, two copies of the waiver form, and a stamped self-
8
addressed envelope. (See ECF No. 23 at 4.) However, plaintiff does not show that he: (1) sent a
9
separate notice, two waiver forms, a copy of the complaint, and a stamped envelope to each
10
individual defendant1; and (2) provided each defendant with a copy of the appropriate Waiver of
11
Service of Summons form.2 If plaintiff can establish that he has met each of the requirements of
12
Rule 4(d), and based on the facts that plaintiff is indigent and incarcerated, then the court will
13
direct the U.S. Marshal to effect service.
14
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within twenty (20) days of the date of this
15
order, plaintiff shall file an addendum to his Motion for U.S. Marshal to Effect Service. In that
16
addendum, plaintiff shall explain whether his attempt to secure waiver of service met the
17
following requirements of Rule 4(d): (1) plaintiff sent a separate notice, two waiver forms, a copy
18
of the complaint, and a stamped, self-addressed envelope to each individual defendant; and (2)
19
plaintiff provided each defendant with a copy of the appropriate Waiver of Service of Summons
20
form.
21
Dated: July 31, 2018
22
23
24
DLB:9
DB/prisoner-civil rights/will1884.rule 4(2)
25
26
27
In fact, plaintiff’s waiver indicates that he just sent one copy to all defendants. The notice
indicates it was sent “TO: Romero et, al.”
28
2
1
A copy of the Waiver of Service of Summons form is an addendum to Rule 4.
2
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?