Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Daniel v. Oaks

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


March 4, 2009

MELVIN DE VAN DANIEL, PLAINTIFF,
v.
B. OAKS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

ORDER

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. On February 24, 2009, plaintiff filed a request for service of process by the U.S. Marshal. On February 26, 2009, plaintiff filed documents entitled "Response to Defendants' Answer to Plaintiff's Amended Complaint" and "Anticipated Discovery and Scheduling Thereof."

However, by order filed January 22, 2009, plaintiff's complaint was dismissed and plaintiff was granted thirty days in which to file an amended complaint. Accordingly, plaintiff's request for service of process is premature and will be denied without prejudice. Plaintiff's February 26, 2009 filings are also premature and will be placed in the court file and disregarded.

Although it appears from the file that plaintiff's copy of the order was returned, plaintiff was properly served. It is the plaintiff's responsibility to keep the court apprised of his current address at all times. Pursuant to Local Rule 83-182(f), service of documents at the record address of the party is fully effective. It appears, however, that plaintiff's address in related Case No. 2:08-cv-682 WBS JFM PS is different from plaintiff's address contained in the instant record.

In an abundance of caution, the Clerk of the Court will be directed to re-serve a copy of the January 22, 2009 order on plaintiff at his present address of record, and on plaintiff at his address of record in Case No. 2:08-cv-0682 WBS JFM PS:

Melvin De Van Daniel 544 Salem Way Stockton, CA 95207.

Plaintiff will be granted an additional twenty days in which to file an amended complaint that complies with the January 22, 2009 order. Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to file an amended complaint will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's February 24, 2009 request is denied without prejudice.

2. Plaintiff is granted twenty days from the date of service of this order to file an amended complaint that complies with this court's January 22, 2009 order.

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff a copy of the January 22, 2009 order, at his address of record, and on his address contained in 2:08-cv-0682 WBS JFM PS:

Melvin De Van Daniel 544 Salem Way Stockton, CA 95207.

20090304

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.