Carranza v. Unnamed Defendants

Filing 94

ORDER Granting in Part and Denying in Part Plaintiff's 90 Motion for Extension of Time and Service Assistance. The Court GRANTS Carranza's motion for a 90-day extension to effect service and for service assistance. The Court Clerk shal l provide a copy of this Order, the Second Amended Complaint, a summons, and a blank U.S. Marshal Form 285 to defense counsel for purposes of re-attempting service. Carranza's request that the Court order Deputy Attorney General Tiffany Johns on to accept service on behalf of the 12 unserved defendants is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Andrew G. Schopler on 5/11/17. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service) (documents mailed to defense counsel and NEFs re-generated)(dlg)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

Selvin Carranza,

12

Case No.: 14-cv-0773-GPC-AGS
Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION OF
TIME AND SERVICE ASSISTANCE
[Doc. 90]

Edmund G. Brown, et al.

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff Selvin Carranza seeks to (1) extend time to effectuate service, (2) order the

18

California Attorney General to accept service for the unserved defendants, and (3) direct

19

the Attorney General to provide the unserved defendants’ forwarding addresses in a

20

confidential memo to the U.S. Marshal Service. [Doc. 90.] The 12 unserved defendants

21

are: R. Casper, R. Lopez, C. P. Franco, Morales (first name unknown), R. Lemon,

22

R. Demesas, Michael Stout, L. Brown, R. Thaxton, J. Ojeda, Sanchez (an R.N., first name

23

unknown), and Molina (first name unknown). [Docs. 45-55, 83.]

24

The Court GRANTS Carranza’s motion for a 90-day extension to effect service and

25

for service assistance. If the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure to serve, a court may

26

extend the service time for an appropriate period. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m); cf. Efaw v.

27

Williams, 473 F.3d 1038, 1041 (9th Cir. 2007). Here Carranza issued summonses on

28

January 24, 2017—within the 90-day time limit for service.

The 12 unexecuted

1
14-cv-0773-GPC-AGS

1

summonses were returned on March 9, March 15, and April 5. [Docs. 45-55, 83.] The

2

Court ordered additional service forms be given to Carranza to finish service on April 18,

3

and he requested this extension of time on May 3, 2017. [Docs. 86, 90.] Carranza states

4

he has been unable to receive access to the materials he needed to serve the large amount

5

of defendants in this case and it took him a great deal of time to complete this process. He

6

also collected the information he provided in his motion to help identify the unserved

7

defendants. Because Carranza began service within the time allotted by Rule 4(m), and

8

has given a good faith effort to assist the Attorney General and U.S. Marshal with

9

identifying these individuals, the Court finds Carranza has shown good cause for an

10

extension.

11

The Court also GRANTS Carranza’s request for service assistance. When an

12

incarcerated plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis, he is entitled to rely on the U.S. Marshal

13

to serve defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3); Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir.

14

1994). Here the defendants could not be served because there are multiple officers with

15

the same last name as one defendant, another needed verification he is the same person

16

named in the lawsuit, several retired, and several were no longer employed at that location.

17

In his current motion, Carranza provided detailed descriptions of each defendant to assist

18

the litigation coordinator with identifying unknown individuals. For those defendants who

19

retired, presumably one reason the U.S. Marshal Service could not complete service was

20

due to the confidential nature of their forwarding addresses.

21

To overcome this issue, as long as the privacy of defendants’ addresses can be

22

preserved, Carranza may rely on the U.S. Marshal Service to effect service as to all

23

unserved defendants on his behalf. See Puett v. Blandford, 912 F.2d 270, 275 (9th Cir.

24

1990). For each defendant in the 12 unexecuted summonses, the Attorney General’s office

25

shall obtain from the R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility that person’s last known contact

26

information and provide this information to the U.S. Marshal in a confidential

27

memorandum stating that the summons and the Second Amended Complaint are to be

28

delivered to the specified address. The Deputy Attorney General assigned to this case
2
14-cv-0773-GPC-AGS

1

shall provide the U.S. Marshal Service with any such information by May 26, 2017. As to

2

the defendants whose first names are not listed, defense counsel shall contact the litigation

3

coordinator at R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility and provide the coordinator with the

4

description and identifying information contained in Carranza’s current motion. [See

5

Doc. 90, at 6-7.]

6

Within 45 days of the receipt of any available addresses, the U.S. Marshal Service

7

shall serve the 12 unserved defendants—or as many of them as can be located—a copy of

8

Carranza’s Second Amended Complaint and summons. The Court Clerk shall provide a

9

copy of this Order, the Second Amended Complaint, a summons, and a blank U.S. Marshal

10

Form 285 to defense counsel for purposes of re-attempting service. Both defense counsel

11

and the Marshal Service must keep any address provided strictly confidential. Thus, no

12

address shall appear on any U.S. Marshal Form 285, be provided to Carranza, or be made

13

part of the Court’s record. In the event that the Correctional Facility does not have updated

14

addresses, or cannot ascertain a defendant’s first name, defense counsel shall file a

15

declaration with the Court to that effect by May 26, 2017.

16

Finally, Carranza’s request that the Court order Deputy Attorney General Tiffany

17

Johnson to accept service on behalf of the 12 unserved defendants is DENIED. [Doc. 90,

18

at 6.] The Deputy’s representation of all served defendants thus far is “insufficient to

19

demonstrate that the Attorney General’s office is authorized to accept service” for the 12

20

unserved defendants. See Laundau v. Voss, No.1:07-cv-00815 AWI FLB PC, 2009 WL

21

1010065, *1, *2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 14, 2009). While the Deputy may ultimately represent the

22

unserved defendants, there has been no appearance on their behalf yet. Thus, the Court

23

cannot order the Deputy to accept service for the unserved defendants.

24

Dated: May 11, 2017

25
26
27
28
3
14-cv-0773-GPC-AGS