Donohue III v. Antioch Police Department

Background

King David Levon Donahue III appeared without a lawyer. Counsel appeared for the City of Antioch, the Antioch Police Department, and the individual officers, and those defendants waived any defect in service or personal jurisdiction. No lawyer appeared for Contra Costa County.

The court had previously extended the time for service under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), which governs the deadline for serving defendants. The court reconsidered that issue because it was not clear whether Donahue had already served Contra Costa County. The court also noted that Donahue had been granted permission to proceed without paying filing fees, commonly called in forma pauperis status. Under Rule 4(c)(3), that status required the court to arrange service on his behalf.

Order

The court found good cause to extend the service deadline if service on Contra Costa County had not occurred. It cited possible confusion about whether defense counsel represented all defendants, the court’s obligation to arrange service after granting fee-waiver status, the possibility that Contra Costa County already had actual notice, the records-based nature of the expected evidence, and the court’s conclusion that the claims remained timely.

The court ordered the following:

- The time to serve Contra Costa County was extended to July 29, 2024. - The Clerk of Court was directed to reissue the summons as needed. - The U.S. Marshal for the Northern District of California was directed to serve Contra Costa County, without requiring advance payment, with the summons, complaint, Donahue’s affidavit, and the order. - Donahue was required to promptly notify the court of any address change while the case was pending. - Donahue was permitted to file an amended complaint by July 31, 2024, at noon. - If an amended complaint was filed, any motion to dismiss or answer would be due within 28 calendar days after filing. If no amended complaint was filed, the court would issue appropriate orders, including on the existing motion to dismiss, and provide further instructions.

The court also invited Donahue to consider obtaining a lawyer, including potentially free legal assistance, but did not appoint counsel or require him to obtain one.

Disposition and Scope

Judge William Alsup entered an order concerning service and case scheduling. The order did not decide the merits of Donahue’s claims and did not decide the existing motion to dismiss. The case was not dismissed by this order.