Revelez v. Allison
- Beth Freeman
- 5:22-cv-01738
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Revelez v. Allison, Judge Freeman ordered more identifying information to serve two defendants and warned of dismissal without prejudice if it was not provided.
Richard Revelez and the unserved defendants, Sergeant D’Tamaso and Sergeant Whitney; the San Quentin State Prison litigation coordinator was also asked to assist.
What happened
In Revelez v. Allison, Richard Revelez, a state inmate representing himself, sued Kathleen Allison and other defendants under a federal civil-rights law. Two defendants, Sergeant D’Tamaso and Sergeant Whitney, could not be identified or served using the information available.
The court ordered Revelez to provide information about those defendants’ current whereabouts or enough identifying information for the U.S. Marshal to serve them. He had 28 days from the filing of the order to do so.
The court also requested help from the San Quentin State Prison litigation coordinator, who was asked to respond within 14 days. Judge Beth Labson Freeman warned that the claims against D’Tamaso and Whitney would be dismissed without prejudice if Revelez failed to provide the requested information.
The detailed version
- Revelez v. Allison · No. 5:22-cv-01738
- Beth Freeman
- July 19, 2023
Background
Richard Revelez, a state inmate proceeding without a lawyer, filed a civil-rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Kathleen Allison, identified as the Secretary of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and multiple unidentified defendants at San Quentin State Prison. The court used information provided by Revelez to order service on newly identified defendants.
The California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation reported that prison personnel could not identify Sergeant D’Tamaso or Sergeant Whitney from the information in the court’s service order. It later reported that searches of electronic records and older rosters did not locate either staff member. As a result, those two defendants had not been served.
Order
The court explained that an incarcerated plaintiff who is proceeding without a lawyer may rely on service by the U.S. Marshal but must still request service and try to correct known problems with service. Because the case had been pending for more than 90 days, the claims against the unserved defendants were subject to dismissal without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) unless Revelez showed good cause.
The court ordered Revelez to file a notice providing information about D’Tamaso and Whitney’s current whereabouts or enough identifying information for the Marshal to serve them. The court gave him 28 days from the filing date of the order. The court did not dismiss those claims in this order; it stated that they would be dismissed without prejudice if Revelez failed to provide the requested information.
In addition, the court requested assistance from the San Quentin State Prison litigation coordinator in identifying the defendants. The coordinator was directed to file a response within 14 days. The Clerk was directed to send the order to Revelez and to serve a copy on the litigation coordinator. The order was signed by United States District Judge Beth Labson Freeman.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.