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.

Dacumos v. World Savings Bank

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


August 11, 2010

EDUARDO DACUMOS, PLAINTIFF,
v.
WORLD SAVINGS BANK, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kendall J. Newman United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER

Plaintiff is proceeding without counsel and in forma pauperis. The court previously ordered service of plaintiff's complaint by the United States Marshal.

The court is in receipt of plaintiff's "Request for Clarification," filed August 9, 2010. (Dkt. No. 12.) Plaintiff's request states the following in its entirety: "For clarification of order regarding process of service [sic]. Is it 120 days from the date of the order or 120 days from the filing of the complaint."

Plaintiff's question is not entirely clear. However, it appears that plaintiff is requesting legal advice regarding the deadline applicable to the service of his complaint. As an initial matter, the court cannot provide plaintiff with legal advice. However, plaintiff might consider reviewing the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, specifically Rule 4(m). The undersigned makes no representation that the answer to plaintiff's specific question will be answered by Rule 4(m), but provides this reference as a potential starting point for plaintiff. Plaintiff is also referred to the Office of Clerk of Court for the Eastern District of California,*fn1 which can provide plaintiff a document entitled "Pro Se Package, A Simple Guide to Filing Civil Action."

In any event, because plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the court previously ordered that the United States Marshal serve plaintiff's complaint on defendant. (Dkt. No. 7.) Accordingly, it is unclear why plaintiff is inquiring about service deadlines.

Complicating matters is the fact that plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on August 9, 2010 (Dkt. No. 11), notwithstanding that it appears that his original complaint has not yet been served on defendant.*fn2 Pursuant to the court's screening authority provided in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), the court must screen plaintiff's First Amended Complaint prior to service. Accordingly, plaintiff should cease any efforts to provide the United States Marshal with the required documents, and the undersigned will direct that the United States Marshal cease efforts to serve defendant with the complaint and other court documents. The undersigned will screen plaintiff's First Amended Complaint by separate order.

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's request for clarification is denied. The court will not consider future requests for legal advice.

2. The undersigned will screen plaintiff's First Amended Complaint by separate order.

3. The Clerk of Court shall serve a copy of this order on the United States Marshal, 501 "I" Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 (tel. 916-930-2030). The United States Marshal shall cease efforts to serve plaintiff's original complaint pending the court's screening of plaintiff's First Amended Complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


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.