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 Elliott Cottle v. D. Randall

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


February 21, 2013

LAWRENCE ELLIOTT COTTLE,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
D. RANDALL, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

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

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR IMMEDIATE SERVICE (Doc. 3.)

Lawrence Elliott Cottle ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on June 14, 2012, together with a motion for the Court to direct the United States Marshal to serve process in this action. (Docs. 1, 2.)

The court is required by law to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity, such as the instant action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally "frivolous or malicious," that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2).

With respect to service, the Court will, sua sponte, direct the United States Marshal to serve the complaint only after the Court has screened the complaint and determined that it contains cognizable claims for relief against the named defendants. On February 20, 2013, after screening the Complaint, the Court entered an order dismissing the Complaint for failure to state a claim, with leave to amend. (Doc. 9.) Thus, the Court found that the Complaint did not state any cognizable claims. Therefore, it is not time for service in this action, and Plaintiff's motion must be denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for immediate service, filed on June 14, 2002, is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20130221

© 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.