Garcia v. Sleeley et al

Filing 68

ORDER for Plaintiff to Serve First Amended Complaint on All Unserved Defendants re 43 Amended Complaint. The Court orders Plaintiff to arrange for service by the United States Marshal's Office on the unserved Defendants. If these defendant s are not served within 30 days of the date on which this Order is electronically docketed, the Court will dismiss them without prejudice in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 10/27/2017. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(mpl)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

RUBEN DARIO GARCIA, JR.,

Case No.: 14-CV-1525-JLS (PCL)
Plaintiff,

11
12

v.

13

ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO
SERVE FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT ON ALL UNSERVED
DEFENDANTS

SLEELEY, et al.,
Defendants.

14
15
16
17

Plaintiff Ruben Dario Garcia, Jr. initiated this action on June 23, 2014 by filing a

18

Complaint. (ECF No. 1.) In that Complaint, Plaintiff named 12 defendants: Sleely, A.

19

Canlas, Martinez, Velardi, R. Clarke, Newton, A. Denbela (incorrectly named as A.

20

Dembela), Jodie Rivera, M. Glynn, R. Cobb, R. Olson, and J. Ramirez. (Id.) On February

21

17, 2015, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis and summons were

22

issued allowing Plaintiff to serve all the named defendants. (ECF Nos. 8, 9.)

23

Defendants Sleely, Canlas, Newton, Denbela, Rivera, Glynn, Cobb, Olson, and

24

Ramirez were served. Defendants Martinez, Velardi, and Clarke were not served. (ECF

25

Nos. 10–22, 25.)

26

On February 23, 2016, the Court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss the case,

27

but did so without prejudice, allowing Plaintiff to file an amended complaint. (ECF No.

28

37.) Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), after an extension of time, on
1
14-CV-1525-JLS (PCL)

1

May 12, 2016. (ECF No. 43.) In his FAC, Plaintiff named the above defendants1 but also

2

added defendants E. Worman, R. Scharffenberg, I. Sedighi, L. Meritt, and L. Sheppard.

3

(Id.) A summons was issued on May 16, 2016. (ECF No. 44.)2 There is no indication the

4

FAC was served on the newly-added defendants.3

5

“If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—

6

on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without

7

prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time.”

8

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). The previously unserved and newly named defendants should have

9

been served 90 days from the filing of the FAC on May 12, 2016. To date, none of the

10

previously unserved defendants nor the newly-added defendants have been served. These

11

defendants are: Walker, Velardi, Martinez, Worman, Scharffenberg, Sedighi, Meritt, and

12

Sheppard.

13

The Court ORDERS Plaintiff to arrange for service by the United States Marshal’s

14

Office on the unserved Defendants.4 If these defendants are not served within 30 days of

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

Defendant Clarke is not named in the FAC, either in the caption or throughout the pleading. Plaintiff’s
allegations against Clarke were clearly listed in Plaintiff’s Complaint. The Court therefore assumes
Plaintiff has dismissed his allegations against Clarke and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Defendant Clarke. Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feinder and Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir.
1989) (“The fact that a party was named in the original complaint is irrelevant; an amended pleading
supersedes the original”); Isom v. Wagatsuma, No. 16-00532 JMS-KJM, 2017 WL 4158203, at *6 (D.
Hawai’i Sept. 18, 2017) (“Defendants not named in the caption, and claims dismissed without prejudice
that are not realleged in an amended complaint may be deemed voluntarily dismissed.”)
2
On September 20, 2017, Magistrate Judge Peter Lewis held a Case Management Conference
telephonically with the parties. During this conference, Magistrate Judge Lewis requested defense counsel
provide the status of the service on Defendants Walker, Martinez, and Velardi; defense counsel filed a
status report indicating these defendants had not yet been served. (ECF No. 66.)
3
Civil Local Rule 4.1(d) provides: “Service of an amended complaint . . . must be made upon each new
party to the litigation, whether or not multiple parties are represented by a single attorney.”
4
Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 4.1(c): “Where service of a summons and pleading is to be made by United
States marshal upon a person or entity, the party at whose request the summons is issued is responsible
for providing the United States marshal’s office with approproiate instructions regarding the person upon
whom service is to be made, in what capacity the service is to be made (official or individual), and at what
address service is to be made. Failure to comply with these instructions may cause the marshal not to
perform service.”
1

2
14-CV-1525-JLS (PCL)

1

the date on which this Order is electronically docketed, the Court will dismiss them without

2

prejudice in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 27, 2017

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
14-CV-1525-JLS (PCL)