IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
April 6, 2012
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Jennifer L. Thurston United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DISREGARDING DEMAND FOR PAYMENT (Doc. 18)
On November 23, 2011, Plaintiff initiated this civil rights action against various individuals. (Doc. 1). On March 9, 2012, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Petition of Settlement and Affidavit in Support of the Petition ("Petition"). (Docs. 15-16) Plaintiff's Petition recited numerous "settlement terms" upon which Plaintiff contends Defendants have agreed to perform and asks this Court to direct Defendants to comply with the stated terms. (Doc. 16 at 3). Because the Court has not yet had the opportunity to screen the complaint and had not authorized service of a summons upon any defendant, the Court advised Plaintiff that it did not have jurisdiction over any defendant at this time. (See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(k); see also Getz v. Boeing Co., 654 F.3d 852, 858 (9th Cir. Cal. 2011) (explaining that serving a summons establishes personal jurisdiction over a defendant).
Undeterred, on April 4, 2012, Plaintiff filed a "demand" requiring certain payments and/or provision of certain services, including rehousing Plaintiff to a location more to his liking. (Doc. 18)
Once again, Plaintiff is advised that no Defendant has appeared in this action. Thus, his "demand" has not been made to any person or entity able to provide him relief. If, assuming his complaint is authorized for service, he wished to engage in settlement negotiations, he may do so with the parties through counsel. He is admonished in future not to file such documents with the Court.
Therefore, the Demand for Payment (Doc. 18) is DISREGARDED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.