Stephen Dragasits v. Correctional Officer Archuleta, et al.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Andrew G. Schopler (author)
Analysis
The court considered a pro se prisoner's motion to compel the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to provide the forwarding addresses of two former employees so the U.S. Marshals Service could effect service of process. The court granted the motion, ordering the CDCR to provide the addresses to the USMS in a confidential memorandum.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Plaintiff's Motion to Compel is granted.“Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is GRANTED” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard from Puett v. Blandford, which holds that a pro se IFP prisoner is entitled to rely on the USMS for service if they provide necessary information. The court noted that the defendants are former employees, making their addresses likely available in CDCR personnel records, and cited district court precedent (Davall, Guerrero) supporting the use of confidential memoranda to obtain such information from state agencies. The order is consistent with the law and the recited facts. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound and relies on binding Ninth Circuit precedent (Puett) and persuasive district court precedent within the same district to support the specific mechanism of using a confidential memorandum to obtain addresses from the CDCR. The court appropriately noted the plaintiff's prior research indicating the defendants were no longer at the facility, which justified the request for forwarding addresses.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 STEPHEN DRAGASITS, Case No.: 24-cv-1257-AGS-SBC CDCR #AR 2176, 12 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S Plaintiff, 13 MOTION TO COMPEL v. [DKT. NO. 40] 14 CORRECTIONAL OFFICER 15 ARCHULETA, et al., 16 Defendants. 17 18 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion to compel the production of 19 information to assist him in locating Defendants Archuleta and Saliewsky for service of 20 process, which was referred to the undersigned by the district judge. (Dkt. Nos. 40, 41.) 21 A prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis is entitled to rely on the United 22 States Marshal Service (“USMS”) for service of the summons and complaint, provided the 23 plaintiff has furnished the information necessary to identify and serve the defendant. Puett 24 v. Blandford, 912 F.2d 270, 275 (9th Cir. 1990). A litigant relying on the marshal for 25 service must provide the information necessary to effect service and must “attempt to 26 remedy any apparent service defects of which [he] has knowledge.” Id. at 274–75. 27 /// 28 1 Plaintiff’s motion does not address whether Plaintiff has adequately attempted to 2 remedy any apparent service defects of which he has knowledge. According to a prior 3 filing, however, Plaintiff’s research reflects that Defendants Archuleta and Saliewsky are 4 no longer employed at the R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility, where the underlying events 5 allegedly took place. (Dkt. No. 36 at 1.) 6 Assuming that Plaintiff’s research is accurate, and as long as these defendants’ 7 forwarding addresses can be easily ascertained by reference to personnel records of the 8 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”), Plaintiff is entitled to 9 rely on the USMS to effect service on these defendants on his behalf. See Puett, 912 F.2d 10 at 275; see also Davall v. Cordero, Case No.: 3:20-cv-1968 JLS (KSC), 2021 WL 2206478, 11 at *6 (S.D. Cal. June 1, 2021) (requiring Deputy Attorney General to obtain the forwarding 12 address for a former CDCR employee defendant and provide the address to the USMS in 13 a confidential memorandum); Guerrero v. Moore, Case No.: 20-cv-01315-GPC-BGS, 14 2021 WL 3370816, at *1 (S.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2021) (directing the USMS to obtain the current 15 address for a former employee defendant via a confidential memorandum from the CDCR). 16 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to compel is GRANTED, and the Court hereby 17 ORDERS as follows: 18 1. The CDCR shall provide any and all forwarding addresses for Defendants 19 Archuleta and Saliewsky contained in its personnel files to the USMS in a confidential 20 memorandum indicating that the summons and Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint 21 (Dkt. No. 30) are to be served upon these defendants at the addresses provided. 22 2. The Clerk of the Court shall serve a copy of this Order electronically and by 23 U.S. Mail on Jeff Macomber, Secretary, California Department of Corrections and 24 Rehabilitation, P.O. Box 942883, Sacramento, California, 94283-0001. 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 3. The CDCR shall file a notice of compliance with this order by July 24, 2026. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 Dated: July 10, 2026 4 MF &. 6 Hon.SteveB.Chu 7 United States Magistrate Judge 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28