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.

Infinity v. Jo Ellen Felice

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


March 14, 2012

INFINITY, PLAINTIFF,
v.
JO ELLEN FELICE, ASSOCIATE COMMISSIONER FOR INCOME SECURITY PROGRAMS, SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, DEFENDANT.

ORDER

Plaintiff, an inmate confined at Pleasant Valley State Prison, filed this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On February 24, 2012, the undersigned granted plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis and found that, for the limited purposes of § 1915A screening, plaintiff's complaint stated a cognizable claim against defendant pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1361 and/or 2201. Dckt. No. 7 at 1, 2. The order noted that plaintiff's complaint challenges the alleged failure by defendant to issue him a Social Security card after he legally changed his name, that plaintiff seeks a declaration of his rights and the duty owed to him by defendant, and that plaintiff does not seek monetary damages. Id. at 2. Therefore, the order directed the Clerk of the Court to issue forthwith all process pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 and to send plaintiff the documents necessary for service of process; directed plaintiff to supply the United States Marshal with all information needed to effect service of process and to file a statement with the court that said documents had been submitted; and directed the Marshal to serve process within 90 days of receipt of the required information from plaintiff, without prepayment of costs. Id. at 3-4.

On March 12, 2012, plaintiff filed a statement indicating that he submitted the necessary service documents to the Marshal. Dckt. No. 12. However, also on March 12, 2012, plaintiff filed a declaration in support of his complaint. Dckt. No. 13. That declaration contains numerous allegations that are not contained within plaintiff's complaint and that are outside the scope of the service order issued on February 24, 2012, and many of the allegations are completely unrelated to the allegations in the complaint. Nor does the declaration appear to be a purported amended complaint. Therefore, that declaration, Dckt. No. 13, is stricken.

20120314

© 1992-2012 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.