Alan Thomas Rigby v. County of Orange California et al
| Alan Thomas Rigby |
| County of Orange California, DOES, Sandra Hutchens and Deputy Sheriffs of Orange County California |
| 8:2010cv00695 |
| May 28, 2010 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| David T Bristow |
| Cormac J. Carney |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
99
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 96 by Judge Cormac J. Carney: IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that the County of Orange and Hutchens Motion to Dismiss 85 is granted and that plaintiffs claims a gainst these defendants are dismissed without leave to amend. On November 19, 2012, plaintiff was advised that he may use the discovery process to attempt to ascertain the identity of the unnamed Doe defendants. Plaintiff is further advised that, u nder Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), service of the, summons and complaint (the Seventh Amended Complaint being the operative complaint) must be accomplished on each named defendant within 120 days after the filing of the complaint. By the Co urts calculation, the 120-day period expired on September 19, 2013. As plaintiff has failed to effectuate proper service within the allotted time, Judgment shall be entered dismissing this action without prejudice as to any unserved defendant(s) by reason of plaintiffs failure to prosecute. (ad)
|
|
Filing
49
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT by Magistrate Judge David T Bristow: As an initial matter, the Court notes that C. Hsien Chiang, M.D. (Chiang) was not named as a defendant in the body of the 4thAC, and that no summons was ever pr epared in his name, or served upon him. See July 11, 2011, 21 DAY Summons Issued re Fourth Amended Complaint, as to defendants County of Orange California, Fischer, Sandra Hutchens, Jaya, Michael Kao, La Paz, Ernest R Williams. Therefore, as to Chian g, the Motion is DENIED.Further, in his Reply, plaintiff acknowledges that Dr. Jaya is not a proper defendant in this matter, and appears to indicate that he will subsequently seek to voluntarily dismiss this defendant. Regardless, plaintiff adduces no evidence that Dr. Jaya has been served with the summons and a copy of the 4thAC as required by Rule 55. As such, with respect to Dr. Jaya, the Motion is DENIED.Finally, with respect to Deputy Sheriff LaPaz, plaintiff has adduced no evidence that t his defendant has been served with the summons and complaint in this matter as required by Rule 55. Moreover, in their Opposition, defendants assert that they have no information indicating that anyone by that name was working at the Orange County Ja il, or otherwise employed by County, at the time of the events described in the 4thAC. Accordingly, with respect to Deputy Sheriff LaPaz, the Motion is DENIED. In light of plaintiffs pro-se status, as well as his assertion that he attempted to contact defendants counsel prior to filing the Motion, but that his collect call was not accepted (see Reply at 6), defendants Request for Sanctions is DENIED. 46 (am) Modified on 1/6/2012 (am).
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the California Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
