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.

Keith Bridgewater v. Matthew Cate

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


January 30, 2013

KEITH BRIDGEWATER, PLAINTIFF,
v.
MATTHEW CATE, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

ORDER

Plaintiff is a prisoner who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 15, 2013, plaintiff filed a motion requesting that the United States Marshal complete service of process on defendants Hicks and Hazlewood. (Doc. No. 32) On August 27, 2012, the court ordered the United States Marshal to serve the complaint on four defendants. Process directed to defendant Hazlewood was returned unserved with a notation indicating that said defendant is no longer employed at California State Prison-Sacramento (CSP-Sacramento), that the service documents had been forwarded, and that the forwarded mail had been stamped "return to sender" and returned unclaimed. See Doc. No. 34. Process directed to defendant Hicks has not yet been returned.

On January 22, 2013, plaintiff filed a request for a ninety-day extension of time to file an opposition to the December 24, 2012 motion to dismiss filed by defendants Turner and Virga. In his request for extension of time (Doc. No. 33), plaintiff asserts that it will be more efficient to proceed once all four defendants have appeared in the action and he seeks the extension of ninety days in order to complete service of process on all four defendants. The court shares the view that judicial economy will be served if service issues are resolved expeditiously. To that end, the court will direct counsel for defendants to inform the court within thirty days whether counsel is willing to accept service of process on behalf of defendant Hazlewood and/or defendant Hicks, and whether counsel will represent either or both of those defendants. The court will set a new briefing schedule on defendants' motion to dismiss following receipt of counsel's response.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff's January 15, 2013 motion to have the United States Marshal complete service of process on defendants Hicks and Hazlewood (Doc. No. 32) is denied without prejudice;

2. Within thirty days from the date of this order counsel for defendants shall inform the court in writing whether counsel is willing to accept service of process on behalf of defendant Hazlewood and/or defendant Hicks, and whether counsel will represent either or both of those defendants;

3. Plaintiff's January 22, 2013 motion for extension of time (Doc. No. 33) is granted;

4. The court will set a new briefing schedule on defendants' December 4, 2012 motion to dismiss following receipt of defense counsel's response to this order.

20130130

© 1992-2013 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.