Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Frank E. Sisneroz v. Whitman

May 23, 2011

FRANK E. SISNEROZ,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
WHITMAN, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary S. Austin United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO SUBMIT ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS REQUIRED FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS, WITHIN THIRTY DAYS ORDER FOR CLERK TO SEND NOTICE, FORMS, AND COPIES TO PLAINTIFF

Plaintiff Frank E. Sisneroz ("Plaintiff") is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action now proceeds on the Second Amended Complaint filed on May 12, 2008 and the Supplemental Complaint filed on June 1, 2009. (Docs. 34, 47.) The Court screened the operative complaints pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and found that Plaintiff states cognizable claims for relief under § 1983 against four Defendants:

1. Bill Whitman

2. Tulare County Board of Supervisors

3. Thomas F. Johnson, and

4. Tulare County Mental Services

On April 8, 2011, the Court issued an order finding service of the complaint appropriate and forwarding service documents to Plaintiff for completion and return. (Doc. 52.) In the order, Plaintiff was directed to return to the Court:

a. Completed summonses for the four Defendants;

b. One completed USM-285 form for each of the four Defendants; and

c. Five (5) copies each of:

(1) the Second Amended Complaint filed May 12, 2008, and (2) the Supplemental Complaint filed June 1, 2009 .

On May 4, 2011, Plaintiff submitted service documents to the Court. (Doc. 53.) However, Plaintiff did not submit all of the documents as instructed in the Court's order. Plaintiff failed to submit summonses or USM-285 forms for defendants Tulare County Board of Supervisors or Tulare County Mental Services. Plaintiff failed to submit any copies of the June 1, 2009 Supplemental Complaint, and he submitted only three copies of the May 12, 2008 Second Amended Complaint.

To enable service to go forward, Plaintiff must submit the missing documents to the Court. On the chance that Plaintiff may not have copies of the Second Amended Complaint or Supplemental Complaint, the Clerk shall be directed to send Plaintiff one ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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