Martinez v. Hatton
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:19-cv-03608
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Martinez v. Hatton, Judge Gilliam ordered Martinez to serve or identify S. Sandoval within 28 days or face dismissal without prejudice.
Ronald F. Martinez and S. Sandoval; the order required Martinez to complete service or provide identifying and locating information for Sandoval, and warned that Sandoval could be dismissed without prejudice if Martinez did not comply.
What happened
In Martinez v. Hatton, Ronald F. Martinez, an incarcerated person proceeding without a lawyer, sued correctional officials under a federal civil-rights law. The court had previously found that his amended complaint stated an Eighth Amendment claim against several defendants, including S. Sandoval.
The U.S. Marshals Service could not serve S. Sandoval because the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation had no record of an employee with that name or title. The court ordered Martinez, within 28 days, either to serve Sandoval or provide enough information to identify and locate him for service.
The order stated that failing to meet the deadline would result in dismissal of the unserved defendant without prejudice under the federal service rule. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. issued the order on July 21, 2020.
The detailed version
- Martinez v. Hatton · No. 4:19-cv-03608
- Haywood Gilliam
- July 21, 2020
Background
Ronald F. Martinez, an incarcerated plaintiff proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against correctional officials at Salinas Valley State Prison. On July 2, 2020, the court found that Martinez’s first amended complaint stated a legally cognizable Eighth Amendment claim against several defendants, including building trades manager S. Sandoval, and issued an order for service.
Service problem
The United States Marshals Service filed an unexecuted summons for S. Sandoval. It reported that the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation had no record of an employee named S. Sandoval or of an employee with that title. The court stated that an incarcerated plaintiff relying on Marshal service cannot remain silent after an apparent service problem and must request service on the proper defendant and try to correct known defects.
Order
The court ordered Martinez, within 28 days, either to effect service on S. Sandoval or to submit sufficient information to identify and locate Sandoval so that the Marshal could serve him. The court stated that failure to comply would result in dismissal of the unserved defendant without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). This order addressed service of process and did not decide the merits of Martinez’s Eighth Amendment claim. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. signed the order.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.