Singson v. Kernan et al

Filing 21

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Motion For Order Directing U.S. Marshal To Effect Service Of Process Pursuant To Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(c)(2) (Re Doc. 20 ): Within 60 days of this order, Plaintiff must serve Defendants with a copy of the Complaint and Summon s. If Plaintiff fails to serve Defendants within sixty days, the Court will dismiss this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). Signed by Judge William Q. Hayes on 1/26/2012. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service.) (mdc)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10
11
12

RONALD W. SINGSON,
CDCR #H-23699,

Civil No.

10cv2362 WQH (BLM)

13

Plaintiff,

14
15

vs.

16
17

SCOTT KERNAN. et al.,

18

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR ORDER DIRECTING
U.S. MARSHAL TO EFFECT
SERVICE OF PROCESS
PURSUANT TO FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(2)
[ECF No. 20]

Defendants.

19
20

I.

Procedural History

21

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, currently incarcerated at the Richard J. Donovan Correctional

22

Facility located in San Diego, California and proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights Complaint

23

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on November 15, 2010. No Defendants have been served in this

24

action and Plaintiff is now seeking to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) for purposes of service

25

only. At the time he filed this action, Plaintiff did not move to proceed in forma pauperis

26

(“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a); instead, he prepaid the entire $350 civil filing fee.

27

////

28

////
-1-

10cv2362 WQH (BLM)

1

II.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Court-Ordered Marshal Service [Doc. No. 5]

2

Because plaintiffs who prepay the civil filing fee are not considered to proceed IFP, they

3

are not automatically entitled to have the U.S. Marshal effect service on their behalf, and they

4

must do so within the 120 days provided by FED.R.CIV.P. 4 (m). Boudette v. Barnette, 923 F.2d

5

754, 757 (9th Cir. 1991) (absent a specific request and court order that the U.S. Marshal effect

6

service on their behalf pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(2), persons who prepay civil filing fees

7

“remain[] responsible for timely service”); 4A WRIGHT & MILLER, FEDERAL PRACTICE &

8

PROCEDURE §§ 1090, 1094 (3d ed. 2002).

9

Plaintiff has now filed a Motion requesting that the U.S. Marshal effect service of his

10

First Amended Complaint pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(2) and 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) which the

11

Court has construed as a Motion to Proceed IFP [ECF No. 20].

12

FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(2) provides that “[a]t the request of the plaintiff . . . the court may

13

direct that service be effected by a United States marshal, deputy United States marshal, or other

14

person or officer specially appointed by the court for that purpose.” FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(2). In

15

addition, as noted above, when plaintiffs are granted leave to proceed IFP, the United States

16

Marshal, upon order of the court, is authorized to serve the summons and complaint on the

17

pauper’s behalf. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); Boudette, 923 F.2d at 757; Walker v. Sumner, 14

18

F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1993).

19

However, Plaintiff is not entitled to proceed IFP in this matter. Section 1915 of Title 28

20

of the United States Code allows certain litigants to pursue civil litigation IFP, that is, without

21

the full prepayment of fees or costs. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2). However, the Prison Litigation

22

Reform Act (“PLRA”) amended section 1915 to preclude the privilege to proceed IFP:

23
24
25

. . . if the prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while
incarcerated or detained in any facility, brought an action or appeal
in a court of the United States that was dismissed on the grounds
that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger
of serious physical injury.

26
27

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). “This subdivision is commonly known as the ‘three strikes’ provision.”

28

Andrews v. King, 398 F.3d 1113, 1116 n.1 (9th Cir. 2005) (hereafter “Andrews”). “Pursuant to
-2-

10cv2362 WQH (BLM)

1

§ 1915(g), a prisoner with three strikes or more cannot proceed IFP.” Id.; see also Andrews v.

2

Cervantes, 493 F.3d 1047, 1052 (9th Cir. 2007) (hereafter “Cervantes”) (under the PLRA,

3

“[p]risoners who have repeatedly brought unsuccessful suits may entirely be barred from IFP

4

status under the three strikes rule[.]”).

5

congressional goal of reducing frivolous prisoner litigation in federal court.” Tierney v. Kupers,

6

128 F.3d 1310, 1312 (9th Cir. 1997).

The objective of the PLRA is to further “the

7

“Strikes are prior cases or appeals, brought while the plaintiff was a prisoner, which were

8

dismissed on the ground that they were frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim,”

9

Andrews, 398 F.3d at 1116 n.1 (internal quotations omitted), “even if the district court styles

10

such dismissal as a denial of the prisoner’s application to file the action without prepayment of

11

the full filing fee.” O’Neal v. Price, 531 F.3d 1146, 1153 (9th Cir. 2008). Once a prisoner has

12

accumulated three strikes, he is prohibited by section 1915(g) from pursuing any other IFP action

13

in federal court unless he can show he is facing “imminent danger of serious physical injury.”

14

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); Cervantes, 493 F.3d at 1051-52 (noting § 1915(g)’s exception for IFP

15

complaints which “make[] a plausible allegation that the prisoner faced ‘imminent danger of

16

serious physical injury’ at the time of filing.”).

17

As an initial matter, the Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint and has

18

ascertained that there is no “plausible allegation” to suggest Plaintiff “faced ‘imminent danger

19

of serious physical injury’ at the time of filing.” Cervantes, 493 F.3d at 1055 (quoting 28

20

U.S.C. § 1915(g)).

21

A court “‘may take notice of proceedings in other courts, both within and without the

22

federal judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue.’” Bias

23

v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1225 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Bennett v. Medtronic, Inc., 285 F.3d

24

801, 803 n.2 (9th Cir. 2002)); see also United States ex rel. Robinson Rancheria Citizens

25

Council v. Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244, 248 (9th Cir. 1992). Here, the Court takes judicial notice

26

that Plaintiff has had at least three prior prisoner civil actions dismissed in the Eastern District

27

of California on the grounds that they were frivolous, malicious, or failed to state a claim upon

28

which relief may be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A. See Singson v.
-3-

10cv2362 WQH (BLM)

1

Carey, E.D. Civil Case No. 01-5090 (Order by Judge Coyle dismissing action for failing to state

2

a claim) (strike one); Singson v. Cal. Dep’t of Corrections, E.D. Civil Case No. 01-6573 (Order

3

by Judge Coyle dismissing action for failing to state a claim) (strike two); Singson v. D.G.

4

Adams, E.D. Civil Case No. 02-6006 (Order by Judge Wanger dismissing action for failing to

5

state a claim) (strike three).1

6

Thus, because Plaintiff is barred from proceeding IFP in this matter pursuant to 28

7

U.S.C. § 1915(g), Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP for purposes of authorizing the United

8

States Marshal Service to effect service on the Defendants is DENIED.

9

III.

Conclusion and Order

10

Good cause having now been shown, IT IS ORDERED that:

11

Plaintiff’s “Motion for Order on the United States Marshal to Effect Service on All of

12

the Defendants in this Case” [ECF No. 20] is DENIED. Within sixty (60) days of this order,

13

Plaintiff must serve Defendants with a copy of the Complaint and Summons. If Plaintiff fails

14

to serve Defendants within sixty days, the Court will dismiss this action pursuant to Federal

15

Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).

16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: January 26, 2012

18

WILLIAM Q. HAYES
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The Court further notes that Plaintiff has filed twenty seven (27) separate § 1983 civil rights
actions in the Northern, Southern, and Eastern Districts of California.
-4-

10cv2362 WQH (BLM)