Latimer v. SD Cty Government, et al

Filing 104

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 99 Plaintiff's Motion for an Order Compelling Discovery. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jan M. Adler on 7/24/09. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service).(tkl) (jrl).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEREK FRANK LATIMER, Plaintiff, v. WILLIAM B. KOLENDER, et al., Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case No. 05-CV-2090-JM (JMA) ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING DISCOVERY [Doc. No. 99]

On July 9, 2009, nunc pro tunc July 2, 2009, Plaintiff filed a "Motion for Order Compelling Discovery," requesting that Defendants' counsel disclose the addresses of the remaining un-served defendants for the purpose of serving those defendants. [Doc. 99]. The Court accepted the motion for filing via Discrepancy Order and further ordered Defendants to file a response by July 22, 2009 [Doc. No. 98]. Defendants filed a response on July 20, 2009 stating that Corazon Roque and Julie Glover are currently employed by the County of San Diego. [Doc. No. 101]. However, neither Corazon Roque nor Julie Glover was named as a defendant in the Fourth Amended Complaint filed on January 6, 2009 [Doc. No. 84]. The Court issued an Order on July 21, 2009 requiring Defendants to identify whether any of the remaining seven unserved Defendants -- Dr. Kama Gulluma, Dr. Arun Swaminath, Dr. Neath

05cv2090JM(JMA)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Sneathin, Balcita Abalchish, RN, Dr. Paulo Guillinta, Dr. Joshua Lee, or Dr. James Adams ­ were currently or formerly employed by the County of San Diego. [Doc. 102]. On July 23, 2009, Defendants filed a Response indicating that nurse Alicia Balcita (named as "Balcita Abalchish, RN" in the Fourth Amended Complaint) is currently employed by the County of San Diego at the George Bailey Detention Facility, but that the remaining six doctor defendants have never been employed by the County. Defendants stated that such doctors are typically employed by the University of California San Diego ("UCSD"). [Doc. 103] Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff's motion to compel is GRANTED IN PART. Defendants have already provided Plaintiff with the address/location of nurse Alicia Balcita, the only remaining unserved defendant employed or formerly employed by the County. Plaintiff may request the U.S. Marshall to effect service on Balcita at the George Bailey Detention Facility.1 2. Plaintiff's motion to compel is DENIED IN PART. County Counsel has no obligation to provide addresses for the remaining six defendants who were not employed by the County, but instead were likely employed by UCSD. DATED: July 24, 2009

Jan M. Adler U.S. Magistrate Judge

"[A]n incarcerated pro se plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis is entitled to rely on the U.S. Marshal for service of the summons and complaint." Puett v. Blandford, 912 F.2d 270, 275 (9th Cir. 1990). So long as the prisoner has furnished the information necessary to identify the defendant, the marshal's failure to effect service of process is automatically good cause within the meaning of Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). See Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994), overruled on other grounds by Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 483-85 (1995). 2
05cv2090JM(JMA)

1