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.

Brummett v. Sillen

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


May 2, 2010

MELVIN RAY BRUMMETT, JR., PLAINTIFF,
v.
SILLEN, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. Beck United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FURNISH FURTHER INFORMATION FOR INITIATION OF SERVICE OF PROCESS (Doc. 21) RESPONSE DUE WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

Plaintiff Melvin Ray Brummett, Jr. ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on Plaintiff's third amended complaint, filed September 2, 2009 (Doc. 21.) Plaintiff states a cognizable claim against Defendant John Doe 1 for violation of the Eighth Amendment and negligence. Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court must appoint the United States Marshal to serve each defendant with a summons and complaint. Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 4(c)(2). However, the Marshal cannot locate and serve unidentified defendants.

Within thirty days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall provide the Court with further information to assist the Marshal in serving defendant. The Court is aware that Plaintiff does not know the names of the Doe defendant. From Plaintiff's third amended complaint, it appears that Defendant John Doe 1 worked at California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility in Corcoran, California, as a registered nurse. Plaintiff interacted with Doe 1 on February 3, 2006. If Plaintiff can remember any other details that might assist the Court and the Marshal, Plaintiff shall so inform the Court.

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff shall provide the Court with any and all information he has that might help the Marshal identify and serve Defendant John Doe 1. The failure to comply with this order will result in recommendation of dismissal of this action for failure to obey a court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20100502

© 1992-2010 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.