UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
January 27, 2010
SAUL BARRIOS PEREZ, PLAINTIFF,
DILL, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Sandra M. Snyder United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS (Docs. 23 and 24)
Plaintiff Saul Barrios Perez, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on December 6, 2007. This action is proceeding on Plaintiff's amended complaint, filed July 22, 2008, against Defendants Dill, Harden, Sobbe, Sandoval, Tyson, Chan, Vieth, and Brown for violation of the Eighth Amendment arising from the conditions of confinement on contraband watch at Kern Valley State Prison in 2006.
The United States Marshal was ordered to initiate service of process on March 19, 2009. Plaintiff's premature motions for entry of default and default judgment were denied in orders filed May 21, 2009, and May 27, 2009. Pending before the Court are Plaintiff's motion for seeking further guidance or explanation regarding the status of service of process, filed June 8, 2009, and Plaintiff's motion that the Marshal serve the summonses and amended complaint, filed June 16, 2009. For the following reasons, Plaintiff's motions are denied as seeking relief not appropriately awarded and as moot.
The Court directs service of process and oversees that it is completed. Once the Marshal has been directed to initiate service, Plaintiff must await the completion of those proceedings. If further information or orders are needed to ensure that service is either completed or found to be impossible to execute based on the information provided by Plaintiff, the Court will ensure that the requisite information is sought or orders issued.
In this instance, Defendants Harden, Sobbe, Sandoval, and Tyson waived service and filed their answer on September 8, 2009, while the Marshal was unable to locate and serve Defendants Dill, Chan, Vieth, and Brown, and service was returned un-executed. The issue of service on Defendants Dill, Chan, Vieth, and Brown is addressed by the Court in a separate order issued concurrently with this order.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's motions are HEREBY DENIED as requesting inappropriate relief and as moot in light of the subsequent filings revealing the status of service on Defendants.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.