IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
November 1, 2012
MICHAEL R. JONES,
FOREST SERVICE, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Craig M. Kellison United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff, proceeding in propria persona, brings this civil action under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Pending before the court is plaintiff's motion for additional time and to change the scheduling order (Doc. 14).
On August 31, 2012, the court issued a minute order resetting the initial scheduling conference as no status reports had been filed and there had been no appearance by the defendants. The scheduling conference is now set for November 14, 2012, at 10:00 a.m. before the undersigned in Redding, California. Plaintiff is requesting the court order all parties to not just file status reports, but also serve the other parties with any status reports filed, and to allow plaintiff 30 days to respond to the defendants' answer to the complaint.
A response to a defendants' answer, unless otherwise ordered by the court, is not an authorized pleading generally allowed pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 7(a). The court finds no justification in this case to require such a pleading. Therefore, plaintiff's request for 30 days to file such a document will be denied as unnecessary. As for plaintiff's request that any status reports be served on the other parties, this is already required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, specifically Rule 5(a). Any document filed with the court must be served on all other parties. In additional, the Local Rules address service on pro se parties who are not under the electronic service requirement. No specific court order is required directing the parties to so serve the other parties. The timing of filing and serving of all documents is governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Eastern District of California Local Rules. The court finds no reason to alter any of those rules.
Finally, plaintiff is cautioned that it does not appear service of process has been properly completed. A preliminary review of his certificate of service (Doc. 13) does not show that plaintiff has complied with the service requirements of Rule 4. Plaintiff has informed the court that he does not wish to have the U.S. Marshal serve the defendants in this case. He may, however, consider reviewing the service requirements contained in Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and attempt proper service again.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for modification (Doc. 14) is denied. The initial scheduling conference is confirmed for November 14, 2012, at 10:00 a.m.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.