(PC) Brummett v. Sillen et al, No. 1:2006cv01255 - Document 39 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER Vacating Findings And Recommendations, And Granting Plaintiff's Requests In Part (Docs. 37 , 38 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 1/6/2011. (Fahrney, E)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Brummett v. Sillen et al Doc. 39 1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 MELVIN RAY BRUMMETT, JR., CASE NO. 1:06-CV-01255-OWW-DLB PC 9 ORDER VACATING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, AND GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS IN PART 10 Plaintiff, v. 11 ROBERT SILLEN, et al., 12 13 (DOCS. 37, 38) Defendants. / 14 15 Plaintiff Melvin Ray Brummett, Jr. (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the 16 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”), proceeding pro se and in 17 forma pauperis in this civil rights action. On April 28, 2010, the Court screened Plaintiff’s third 18 amended complaint and found that he stated a cognizable claim for relief against Defendants S. 19 Kaur and Doe 1. On June 2, 2010, the Court directed the United States Marshal to effect service 20 of process on Defendant S. Kaur, and on June 6, 2010, the Court directed the Marshal to effect 21 service on Doe 1. The Marshal was unable to locate and serve either Defendant, and on October 22 4, 2010 and November 19, 2010, the Marshal returned the USM-285 forms. Docs. 32, 35. On 23 October 26, 2010, the Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why Defendant S. Kaur should not 24 be dismissed from the action for Plaintiff’s failure to provide sufficient information for the 25 Marshal to effect service. On December 1, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion for expansion of time to 26 have the United States Marshal effect service. Doc. 36. On December 9, 2010, the undersigned 27 filed Findings and Recommendation recommending dismissal of this action without prejudice for 28 Plaintiff’s failure to provide sufficient information for the United States Marshal to effect 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 service. Doc. 37. On January 3, 2011, Plaintiff filed his objections. Doc. 38. 2 Plaintiff contends that the United States Marshal did not undertake sufficient inquiry as to 3 Defendant S. Kaur’s current address in order to effect service. A review of the USM-285 form 4 returned on October 4, 2010 indicates that the Marshal inquired with PHCS and the CDC locator, 5 and did not find that Defendant S. Kaur was currently employed. It is unclear if the Marshal 6 made any further inquiry. 7 As the Court finds that the Marshal can make further inquiry with the Office of Legal 8 Affairs for the CDCR, the Court will vacate its Findings and Recommendation recommending 9 dismissal and will direct the United States Marshal to re-attempt service on Defendant S. Kaur 10 one more time. 11 Plaintiff requests that the United States Marshal provide Plaintiff with a photo array of 12 institutional employee photographs from January 2006 until January 2007 in order to identify 13 Defendant John Doe l. The Court does not grant this request, as it is unclear if such a collection 14 of photographs exists, and Plaintiff has indicated that he can identify John Doe 1 via a review of 15 his central file. The Court will not order the Marshal to re-attempt service on John Doe 1 until 16 Plaintiff provides further information. The Court will not dismiss John Doe 1 from this action at 17 this time. However, Plaintiff is required to be diligent in his efforts to identify John Doe 1. 18 Failure to do so will result in dismissal of John Doe 1 from this action. 19 Plaintiff also requests that the undersigned no longer be a part of this action, due to 20 perceived delays and Plaintiff’s opinion that the undersigned is negligent in adjudicating this 21 action. The Court deals with hundreds of prisoner civil rights cases daily. Delays in adjudicating 22 prison civil rights cases can and do occur in the Eastern District of California. The Court deals 23 with these cases as best it can based on the judicial resources available. Plaintiff cites to no legal 24 authority in support of his request that the undersigned no longer be assigned to this action, and it 25 is denied. 26 Plaintiff also contends that the undersigned is liable pursuant to the Federal Torts Claims 27 Act. Plaintiff is incorrect, as judges have absolute immunity from civil liability for judicial acts 28 taken within the jurisdiction of their courts. See Schucker v. Rockwood, 846 F.2d 1202, 1204 2 1 (9th Cir. 1988) (per curiam); see also Tanner v. Heise, 879 F.2d 572, 576-78 (9th Cir. 1989). 2 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 3 1. The Court’s Findings and Recommendation, filed December 9, 2010, is 4 VACATED and the Court will direct the United States Marshal to effect service 5 of process on Defendant S. Kaur by separate order; and 6 7 8 2. Plaintiff’s other requests are denied. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 3b142a January 6, 2011 /s/ Dennis L. Beck UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
