Jones v. Murphey
- Wise
- 5:24-cv-07831
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Jimmie Earl Jones v. Bret Murphey, Judge Wise gave Jones 30 days to fix service and ordered served defendants to file dispositive motions.
Plaintiff Jimmie Earl Jones must serve Esposti and Murphey or provide accurate location information within 30 days and must follow the court’s litigation requirements. Reames’s claims will proceed because Reames waived service. Esposti and Murphey face dismissal without prejudice if service is not completed or adequate location information is not provided. All served defendants are subject to the new dispositive-motion schedule.
What happened
In Jimmie Earl Jones v. Bret Murphey, the Marshals could not serve Defendants Esposti and Murphey because they did not work at the address Jones provided. The court gave Jones 30 days to serve them or provide accurate location information.
If Jones does neither, the claims against Esposti and Murphey will be dismissed without prejudice under the service rule, meaning the dismissal would not bar refiling. Because Reames waived service, Jones’s claims against Reames will proceed.
Judge Noél Wise also changed the schedule: served defendants must file a motion for summary judgment or another motion that could end the case within 90 days, Jones may oppose within 28 days, and defendants may reply within 14 days. The court also allowed discovery and reminded Jones that he must keep the court informed of address changes and prosecute the case.
The detailed version
- Jones v. Murphey · No. 5:24-cv-07831
- Wise
- Sept. 1, 2026
Background
The court stated that Defendant Reames had waived service. On March 16, 2026, it directed the United States Marshal to serve Defendants Esposti and Murphey at a location provided by Plaintiff Jimmie Earl Jones. The summonses for Esposti and Murphey were returned unexecuted on July 6, 2026, because neither defendant worked at that address.
The court explained that a plaintiff proceeding without paying filing fees may rely on the Marshal for service but must still help provide enough information to complete service. Jones’s Third Amended Complaint had been pending for more than 90 days. The court therefore stated that, absent good cause, the claims against unserved defendants were subject to dismissal without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).
Orders Concerning Service
Within 30 days of the order, Jones must either serve Esposti and Murphey or provide sufficient current location information for the Marshal to serve each defendant. If he does not comply, the court will dismiss the claims against Esposti and Murphey without prejudice under Rule 4(m). Because Reames waived service, the court ordered that Jones’s claims against Reames proceed.
Briefing Schedule and Discovery
The court changed the schedule for dispositive motions, meaning motions that could resolve the case or claims. No later than 90 days after the order, all served defendants—including Esposti and Murphey if Jones properly serves them within 30 days—must file a motion for summary judgment or another dispositive motion. The motions must include adequate factual support and records and incident reports related to the events at issue. If defendants believe the case cannot be resolved through such a motion, they must notify the court before the filing deadline.
Defendants must serve Jones with all court papers and provide the notices required when filing a summary-judgment motion or a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust required administrative remedies. Jones’s opposition is due 28 days after service of the motion, and any reply is due 14 days after the opposition. The motions will be submitted when the reply is due, and no hearing will be held unless the court later orders one.
The parties may conduct discovery under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure without seeking another court order. Jones must serve copies of his communications with the court on the defendants or their counsel. He also must keep the court informed of address changes; failure to do so or to prosecute the case could lead to dismissal under Rule 41(b).
Disposition and Classification
This is a procedural order concerning service, scheduling, and discovery. The court did not decide the underlying claims. It ordered further service attempts, set a conditional consequence of dismissal without prejudice for Esposti and Murphey, confirmed that the claims against Reames will proceed, and ordered the briefing schedule described above. Judge Noél Wise signed the order on September 1, 2026.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.