Collins v. City of Oakland et al

Filing 53

ORDER (1) DIRECTING MR. BAZILE AND MR. ACOSTA TO ANSWER OR OTHERWISE RESPOND TO MR. COLLINS'S COMPLAINT AND (2) REGARDING THE SERVICE OF OFFICER COCANOUR. Signed by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler on 10/18/2013. (lblc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/18/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

Northern District of California

10

San Francisco Division
CLAYTON COLLINS,

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

Plaintiff,
v.

13
CITY OF OAKLAND, et al.,
14
15
16

Defendants.
_____________________________________/

No. C 13-01493 LB
ORDER (1) DIRECTING MR. BAZILE
AND MR. ACOSTA TO ANSWER OR
OTHERWISE RESPOND TO MR.
COLLINS’S COMPLAINT AND (2)
REGARDING THE SERVICE OF
OFFICER COCANOUR

Plaintiff Clayton Collins, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint on April 3, 2013. He named 2

17

entities and 3 individuals as defendants, namely, the City of Oakland, the County of Alameda, Leo

18

Bazile, Antonio Acosta, and Officer Rick Cocanour. Complaint, ECF No. 1. So far, both entity

19

defendants and two of the individual defendants (Ms. Bazile and Mr. Acosta) have appeared in this

20

action. The entity defendants have filed motions to dismiss Mr. Collins’s complaint. Motion to

21

Dismiss (Alameda), ECF No. 11; Motion to Dismiss (Oakland), ECF No. 12. Mr. Bazile and Mr.

22

Acosta have yet to answer or otherwise respond to Mr. Collins’s complaint. To make the record

23

clear and provide a definite deadline, the court now ORDERS Mr. Bazile and Mr. Acosta to answer

24

or otherwise respond to Mr. Collins’s complaint no later than Tuesday, October 29, 2013. The

25

court chooses this date because it is 21 days after they appeared in this action. See Consent

26

(Acosta), ECF No. 47; Consent (Bazile), ECF No. 48; cf. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (generally requiring a

27

defendant to answer or otherwise respond to a complaint within 21 days of being served).

28

It appears that Officer Cocanour, the third individual defendant, was not properly served with the

C 13-01493 LB
ORDER

1

complaint and summons. According to a letter filed by Mr. Collins and a declaration filed Sergeant

2

David Vandagriff of the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, it appears that Officer Cocanour was not

3

a member of the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office (as Mr. Collins alleges in his complaint) but

4

instead was a member of the City of Alameda Police Department who served, at the time relevant to

5

this action, as a member of Alameda County Sheriff’s Sexual Assault Felony Enforcement Task

6

Force (“SAFE Task Force”). Letter, ECF No. 51; Vandagriff Declaration, ECF No. 52 ¶¶ 3-5. This

7

presents a problem here because Mr. Collins provided the Clerk of the Court (and therefore the U.S.

8

Marshal, who served the complaint and summons) with the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office’s

9

address for purposes of serving Officer Cocanour. See Issued Summons (Officer Cocanour), ECF

Alameda County Sheriff’s Office (albeit at a different address than the one Mr. Collins provided).

12
For the Northern District of California

No. 7-4. Thus, the U.S. Marshal served the complaint and summons for Officer Cocanour at the

11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

See Executed Summons (Officer Cocanour), ECF No. 21. But because Officer Cocanour was never

13

a member of the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, service there was not proper.

14

The question, then, is what to do about this. The court recognizes that Officer Cocanour’s

15

participation in the SAFE Task Force made it difficult for Mr. Collins to identify his employer and

16

provide the correct address to the Clerk of the Court for service. It also is unclear whether Officer

17

Cocanour even works for the City of Alameda Police Department anymore; Sergeant Vandagriff’s

18

declaration states only that Officer Cocanour worked there in 1998 and 1999. Vandagriff

19

Declaration, ECF No. 52 ¶ 4. To resolve this, the court ORDERS Mr. Collins to file a letter by

20

Tuesday, October 29, 2013 that provides the Clerk of the Court with a new address to serve Officer

21

Cocanour. After he provides the new address, the court will direct the U.S. Marshal to attempt to

22

serve Officer Cocanour at it. If Officer Cocanour still is unable to be served, the court will dismiss

23

him without prejudice from this action as it will have been well past the 120-day deadline for

24

service. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).

25

At this time, the hearing on the entity defendants’ pending motions to dismiss remains on

26

calendar for December 19, 2013 in Courtroom C, 15th Floor, United States District Court, 450

27

Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California, 94102.

28

C 13-01493 LB
ORDER

2

1
2

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 18, 2013
_______________________________
LAUREL BEELER
United States Magistrate Judge

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

12
For the Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

11

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

C 13-01493 LB
ORDER

3