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.

Lawrence L. Marsh v. M. Vegianelli

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


September 24, 2012

LAWRENCE L. MARSH,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
M. VEGIANELLI, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

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

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR COURT TO SERVE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL WITH DOCUMENTS (Docs. 60, 62.)

Lawrence L. Marsh ("Plaintiff") is a prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on July 17, 2009. (Doc. 1.) This action now proceeds on the Third Amended Complaint filed on July 7, 2011, against defendants Cano, Lovell, Rohrandanz, and Morgan for failure to protect Plaintiff, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. 45.) On December 19, 2011, the Court issued an order directing the United States Marshal to serve process upon defendants. (Doc. 53.) On March 1, 2012 and March 21, 2012, Plaintiff filed motions for the Court to serve copies of the USM-285 form, summons, and complaint upon Deputy Attorney General ("DAG") Kelly A. Samson. (Docs. 60, 62.)

Plaintiff asserts that he received a letter from the DAG, dated February 27, 2012, indicating that the service of process initiated by the Court was defective because copies of documents were not served upon the DAG. Plaintiff has misinterpreted the letter he received, which states: "Copies of all pleadings, motions, or other documents required to be served upon this defendant must be served upon me at the above address is Sacramento. Service at any other address is defective." (Letter, Doc. 62 at 2.) The DAG is simply informing Plaintiff that he should serve copies of future documents for this action upon the DAG at the Sacramento address provided in the letterhead. Thus, no action is required by the Court, and Plaintiff's motions shall be denied.

Accordingly, Plaintiff's motions, filed on March 1, 2012 and March 21, 2012, are denied. IT IS SO ORDERED.

20120924

© 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.