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)

Download PDF
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?