Murschel v. Paramo

[3] 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [6] 7 LANCE MURSCHEL, Case No.: 3:17-cv-1142-BTM-AGS CDCR #P-04895 [8] ORDER: Plaintiff, [9] vs. 1) GRANTING MOTION FOR [10] EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE 11 RESPONSE TO MOTION TO D. PARAMO, Warden, et al., DISMISS; and [12] Defendants. 13 2) DIRECTING DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL TO [14] PROVIDE DEFENDANTS’ 15 FORWARDING ADDRESSES IN CONFIDENTIAL MEMO [19] 20 Lance Murschel (“Plaintiff”), currently incarcerated at the Richard J. Donovan 21 Correctional Facility (“RJD”), is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in the 22 civil rights action filed pursuant 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . 23 I. Procedural History 24 On April 8, 2019, Defendant Melton filed a “Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s 25 Complaint.” (ECF No. 31.) A hearing date was set for May 31, 2019. (Id. at 1.) 26 However, instead of filing a response to Defendant’s motion, Plaintiff filed a motion 27 seeking an extension of time to file an opposition, along with a motion to appoint 28 counsel. (ECF Nos. 34, 36.) 1 On June 4, 2019, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time and 2 re-set the hearing date for Defendant Melton’s Motion to July 26, 2019. (ECF No. 37.) 3 In addition, the Court reviewed the docket and noted that two other Defendants, Trimble 4 and Brown, have not yet been served in this action. (ECF Nos. 26, 27.) The Court also 5 issued an Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) why these Defendants should not be dismissed 6 for failing to prosecute. (ECF No. 39.) 7 On August 6, 2019, Plaintiff filed a “Motion for Late Filing of Response to 8 Defendant’s Melton to Dismiss Complaint, Motion for Reservice of Defendants Trimble 9 & Brown; and Motion for Response to Order to Show Case to Dismiss.” (ECF No. 39.) 10 I. Motion for Extension of Time to File Opposition to Motion to Dismiss 11 As stated above, Plaintiff has filed a request seeking an extension of time to file an 12 opposition to Defendant’s motion indicating that the inmate who had been assisting him 13 in this matter was transferred to another prison and he has had inadequate access to the 14 prison’s law library. (ECF No. 39 at 2.) 15 “‘Strict time limits ... ought not to be insisted upon’ where restraints resulting from 16 a pro se ... plaintiff’s incarceration prevent timely compliance with court deadlines.” 17 Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1136 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing Tarantino v. Eggers, 380 18 F.2d 465, 468 (9th Cir. 1967); see also Bennett v. King, 205 F.3d 1188, 1189 (9th Cir. 19 2000). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time is GRANTED. The 20 Court will reschedule this matter to be set for Friday, October 18, 2019. The matter will 21 be taken under submission at that time and no oral argument will be necessary. 22 II. Motion for Extension of Time to Serve Defendants Trimble and Brown 23 Plaintiff also seeks an extension of time to respond to the Court’s OSC and 24 assistance in serving Defendants Trimble and Brown. Plaintiff’s previous attempts at 25 serving these two parties were unsuccessful. As to Defendant Trimble, the U.S. Marshal 26 returned proof of service as unexecuted on March 5, 2019, with a notation that the 27 litigation coordinator at RJD indicated that Defendant Trimble was “not employed, could 28 not locate by that name.” (ECF No. 26). As to Defendant Brown the returned proof of 1 service indicates that the RJD litigation coordinator “could not locate by that name.” 2 (ECF No. 17.) 3 Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that: 4 [i]f a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court–on motion or on its own after notice to the 5 plaintiff–must dismiss the action without prejudice against the defendant or order that service be made within a specified time. 6 But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period. 7 FED. R. CIV. P. 4(m). [8] 9 In cases involving a plaintiff proceeding IFP, a United States Marshal, upon order 10 of the court, serves the summons and the complaint. FED. R. CIV. P. 4(c)(3) (providing for 11 service by a United States marshal or deputy marshal “if the plaintiff is authorized to 12 proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C § 1915.”); 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (d) (“The officers 13 of the court shall issue and serve all process, and perform all duties in [IFP] cases.”). 14 “‘[A]n incarcerated pro se plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis is entitled to rely on the 15 U.S. Marshal for service of the summons and complaint and ... should not be penalized 16 by having his action dismissed for failure to effect service where the U.S. Marshal or the 17 court clerk has failed to perform his duties.’” Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th 18 Cir. 1994) (quoting Puett v. Blandford, 912 F.2d 270, 275 (9th Cir. 1990)), abrogated on 19 other grounds by Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995). “So long as the prisoner has 20 furnished the information necessary to identify the defendant, the marshal’s failure to 21 effect service is ‘automatically good cause.’” Walker, 14 F.3d at 1422 (quoting Sellers v. 22 United States, 902 F.2d 598, 603 (7th Cir. 1990)). 23 The Court enjoys broad discretion under Rule 4(m) to extend time for service even 24 without a showing of good cause. In re Sheehan, 253 F.3d 507, 513 (9th Cir. 2001); 25 Mann v. American Airlines, 324 F.3d 1088, 1090 (9th Cir. 2003) (holding that district 26 court may, under the broad discretion granted by FED. R. CIV. P. 4(m), extend time for 27 service retroactively after the 120-day service period has expired). [28] 1 Here, the Court finds Plaintiff has provided information “necessary to sufficiently 2 identify” Defendants Trimble and Brown. Walker, 14 F.3d at 1422 . Because it appears 3 the only reason the U.S. Marshal was previously unable to effect service upon 4 Defendants may be because they are no longer employed at RJD, and so long as the 5 privacy of both Defendant Trimble and Brown’s forwarding addressed can be preserved, 6 Plaintiff is entitled to rely on the U.S. Marshal to effect service upon them on his behalf. 7 See Puett, 912 F.2d at 275 . 8 The Court will therefore direct the Deputy Attorney General assigned to this case 9 to contact the Litigation Coordinator at RJD, and ask that they provide any and all 10 forwarding addresses in his or her possession, or which are obtainable from the CDCR’s 11 personnel records and to forward those addresses to the U.S. Marshal in a confidential 12 memorandum indicating that the summons and Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1) is to be 13 served upon them at the addresses provided. 14 III. Conclusion and Orders 15 Based on the foregoing, and finding good cause therefor, the Court: 16 1) GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Extension of Time to respond to Defendant 17 Melton’s Motion to Dismiss and to respond to the Court’s OSC. (ECF No. 39). 18 Defendant Melton’s “Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint” is reset for hearing on 19 Friday, October 18, 2019 at 11:00 a.m. There will be no appearances necessary. 20 Plaintiff must file and serve his opposition or notice of non-opposition no later than 21 Friday, October 4, 2019. Defendant may file her reply, if any, no later than Friday, 22 October 11, 2019. 23 2) DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to issue a summons as to Plaintiff’s 24 Complaint (ECF No. 1) upon Defendants Trimble and Brown pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25 4(a), (b), and forward it, together with two blank U.S. Marshal Form 285s for Defendants 26 Trimble and Brown to the U.S. Marshal, together with two certified copies of Plaintiff’s 27 Complaint (ECF No. 1), a copy of the June 14, 2017 Order Granting IFP (ECF No. 7) and 28 the January 22, 2018 Order Directing U.S. Marshal Service (ECF No. 16). 1 3) | DIRECTS the Deputy Attorney General assigned to this case to determine 2 the Litigation Coordinator at RJD, the forwarding addresses in their records for 3 || Defendants J. Trimble and D. Brown, both former staff psychologists at RJD, and to 4 || provide those addressed to the U.S. Marshal in a confidential memorandum. The 5 ||summons and Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 1) are to be served upon them at those 6 || addresses, as soon as possible. Pursuant to this confidential service Order, neither 7 Defendant Trimble nor Defendant Brown’s addresses shall appear on any U.S. Marshal 8 || Form 285, be made accessible to Plaintiff under any circumstances, or be made part of 9 || the Court’s record. They shall not be on the proof of service filed with the Court. The 10 ||Deputy Attorney General shall give notice of the confidentiality provisions to the Deputy 11 Marshal who will effect service. 12 4) DIRECTS the U.S. Marshal, pursuant to FED. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3), (m) and 28 13 U.S.C. § 1915 (d), within 30 days of receiving Defendant Trimble and Brown’s 14 || confidential forwarding addresses, to effect service of Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 1) 15 |}and summons upon Defendants Trimble and Brown. The U.S. Marshal shall return proof 16 || of that service, and/or any attempts of unsuccessful service as to Trimble and Brown 17 || within 30 days of receipt of Trimble and Brown’s addresses, but shall not include the 18 || confidential forwarding addresses on the U.S. Marshal Form 285s or proof of service to 19 || be filed in the Court’s docket. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. [21] 22 Dated: August 27, 2019 Fig Til Maha 23 Hon. Batry Ted Moskowitz United States District Judge [28] 5 oe