The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gregory G. Hollows United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff, who paid the filing fee in full and did not qualify for in forma pauperis status, has been responsible for serving the amended complaint upon all defendants, an obligation he has attempted to carry out with mixed results. To date, answers have been filed on behalf of four of the seven named defendants.
As noted in an order, filed on 5/20/08, although plaintiff proceeds pro se, on 5/07/08, an attorney, Steven C. Sanders, who represents plaintiff in unrelated legal matters, filed a letter indicating that plaintiff has been placed in administrative segregation for his own protection and is to be transferred. Mr. Sanders informed the court that since April 9, 2008, plaintiff has been separated from his legal papers and plaintiff believes he will not have access to his legal property for an unknown period of time.
The court was also informed that plaintiff has sought the addresses of the remaining unserved defendants from defendants' counsel by way of discovery. In the 5/20/08 order, the court directed defendants' counsel to query the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to ascertain the whereabouts of defendants D.K. Butler, W. Parker, and A. Groner.
On 6/05/08, defendants' counsel informed the court that CDCR representative D. Johnson at California State Prison - Folsom indicated that CSP- Folsom has always (at the relevant times) been authorized to accept service of legal documents on behalf of defendant Butler; moreover, defendants Parker and Groner, retired from CDCR, are willing to permit CSP-Folsom to accept service of plaintiff's complaint on their behalf.
Defendants ask that the court direct the U.S. Marshal to serve the complaint upon these three defendants in care of CSP-Folsom's Litigation Coordinator. Subsequently, on 6/19/08, plaintiff filed a declaration indicating that he had had a process server contact CSP-Folsom but had failed to ascertain a location to serve defendants. In light of plaintiff's difficulties and defendants' counsel's request, the court, by separate order, will direct the U.S. Marshal to serve the unserved defendants in the manner suggested by counsel for defendants.
On June 24, 2008, filed a motion for leave to file a second amended complaint, and, on June 25, 2008, filed a proposed second amended complaint. On June 25, 2008, defendants filed a request for a screening order. The court will deny defendants' request and will direct defendants to provide a substantive response to the motion and proposed second amended complaint, either in the form of an opposition or a statement of non-opposition, within thirty days.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:
1. Defendants' counsel has discharged the order, filed on 5/20/08;
2. Defendants' request for the U.S. Marshal to serve the complaint upon each of the remaining unserved defendants will be granted by separate order;
3. Defendants' request for a screening order, filed on June 25, 2008 (# 43), as to plaintiff's motion for leave to file a second amended complaint and proposed second amended complaint is denied and defendants are directed to file a substantive response to the motion and proposed second amended complaint in the form of an opposition or statement of non-opposition within thirty days of the filed date of this order.
© 1992-2008 VersusLaw ...