Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Sept. 4, 2020

Bulandr v. Robertson

Judge
Beth Freeman
Docket
5:19-cv-07942
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In Bulandr v. Robertson, Judge Freeman ordered more information to serve Officer Galarza, warning the claim could otherwise be dismissed without prejudice.

Who this affects

Ian Anthony Bulandr and Officer Galarza; Bulandr was required to provide information to facilitate service, and the claim against Galarza was at risk of dismissal without prejudice.

What happened

Ian Anthony Bulandr sued Jim Robertson and other prison personnel under a civil-rights law. The court had found that his complaint stated a possible religious-freedom claim, but Officer Galarza could not be located or served.

The court gave Bulandr 28 days to provide information that would help the court marshal serve Galarza. The court warned that, without the requested information or a showing of good cause, Bulandr’s claim against Galarza could be dismissed without prejudice.

In Bulandr v. Robertson, Judge Beth Labson Freeman ordered Bulandr to file the requested notice; the order did not dismiss the claim.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Bulandr v. Robertson · No. 5:19-cv-07942
Judge
Beth Freeman
Date
Sept. 4, 2020

Background

Ian Anthony Bulandr, a state prisoner proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against personnel at Pelican Bay State Prison. After an initial review, the court found that the complaint stated a legally recognizable claim under the Free Exercise Clause. The Clerk mailed lawsuit notices and requests to waive formal service to several defendants, including Officer Galarza.

The California Attorney General’s Office informed the court that it did not represent Officer Galarza. It also reported that the prison had no record of an employee named Galarza and no address for that person.

Order

The court explained that an incarcerated plaintiff proceeding without paying filing fees may rely on service by the court marshal, but must still request service and try to correct apparent problems. Because the case had been pending for more than 90 days, the court stated that, absent good cause, the claim against Officer Galarza was subject to dismissal without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).

The court ordered Bulandr to file a notice providing more information about Officer Galarza so that the marshal could complete service. The court gave Bulandr 28 days from the filing date of the order to provide that information. If he failed to do so, the court stated that his claim against Officer Galarza would be dismissed without prejudice. The order itself did not dismiss the claim.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.