De Tagle v. Santa Clara County, San Jose Police Department
- Virginia Demarchi
- 5:23-cv-05095
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Austin De Tagle v. Officer Julian #4610, Magistrate Judge Demarchi ordered the self-represented plaintiff to provide an updated address after service failed.
Austin De Tagle was required to provide updated address information for defendant San Jose Police Officer Julian #4610 by December 30, 2023. The order also affected the U.S. Marshal’s effort to serve Officer Julian.
What happened
Austin De Tagle, who was representing himself, brought a civil-rights action against San Jose Police Officer Julian #4610. The court had screened his amended complaint, allowed him to proceed without paying the filing fee, and directed service of the lawsuit.
The U.S. Marshal could not serve Officer Julian because he could not be located. The Marshal reported that Officer Julian had resigned from the San Jose Police Department in April 2023. The court ordered Mr. De Tagle to file updated address information for Officer Julian by December 30, 2023, and encouraged him to seek help from the Federal Pro Se Program.
Magistrate Judge Virginia K. Demarchi issued the order on December 1, 2023. The order addressed service of process and did not decide the underlying civil-rights claims.
The detailed version
- De Tagle v. Santa Clara County, San Jose Police Department · No. 5:23-cv-05095
- Virginia Demarchi
- Dec. 1, 2023
Background
Austin De Tagle filed an amended complaint in a civil-rights action naming “San Jose Police Officer Julian #4610” as the sole defendant. Mr. De Tagle was representing himself. The court had screened the amended complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), granted his application to proceed without paying the filing fee, and directed the U.S. Marshal to serve Officer Julian with the summons and amended complaint.
Service attempt
The Marshal returned the summons unexecuted on November 27, 2023. The Deputy Marshal reported that an attempted service at the San Jose Police Department was unsuccessful because Officer Julian had resigned from the department in April 2023 and could not be located.
Order
The court stated that, generally, the plaintiff is responsible for determining a defendant’s whereabouts so the defendant can be served. It ordered Mr. De Tagle to file a statement containing updated information about Officer Julian’s address by December 30, 2023. The court also encouraged Mr. De Tagle to seek assistance from the Federal Pro Se Program. This order concerned service of process—the formal delivery of the lawsuit—and did not decide the merits of the civil-rights claims.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.