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.

Benyamini v. Blackburn

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit

July 10, 2013

ROBERT BENYAMINI, Plaintiff,
v.
M. BLACKBURN, et al., Defendants.

ORDER

ALLISON CLAIRE, Magistrate Judge.

On April 22, 2013, the undersigned granted plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and ordered plaintiff to supply the United States Marshall, within 15 days, "all information needed by the Marshall to effect service of process, " and to file with the court "a statement.... that said documents have been submitted to the United States Marshall." ECF No. 8 at 2. The order further stated that the court anticipated that the U.S. Marshall would require, at a minimum, (1) one completed summons for each defendant; (2) one completed USM-285 form for each defendant; (3) one copy of the endorsed complaint for each defendant, with an extra copy for the U.S. Marshall; (4) one copy of the court's status order for each defendant; and (5) one copy of the April 22, 2013 order for each defendant. Id. at 3.

Plaintiff has not fully complied with the court's April 22, 2013 order. Instead, he has filed with the court copies of the summons for each defendant and copies of the USM-285 form for each defendant, as well as incomplete copies of his complaint. He has not filed complete copies of his complaint, nor has he provided copies of the court's status order, or copies of the court's April 22, 2013 order. He has also not filed with the court a statement that he provided any materials to the United States Marshall.

In addition, plaintiff has filed a motion for permission to file his documents electronically, alleging that he filed a motion for such permission in November 2012, but that he has not yet received a response. It is unclear in what action plaintiff filed his November 2012 motion, as the instant action was not initiated until February 2013. In any event, while plaintiff alleges in conclusory fashion that he is being prejudiced, he fails to articulate what prejudice he is suffering because of his inability to file electronically, much less how such permission would alleviate the prejudice. His motion will accordingly be denied.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT

1. Plaintiff's May 1, 2013 submission (ECF No. 11) is stricken;
2. The Clerk of the Court shall re-issue to plaintiff one USM-285 form for each defendant, one summons, a copy of the complaint, an appropriate form for consent to trial by a magistrate judge, this court's status order, and the court's April 22, 2013 order;
3. Plaintiff is given 21 days from the filing date of this order to comply with the instructions in the court's April 22, 2013 order, failing which the undersigned will recommend that the action be dismissed without prejudice; and
4. Plaintiff's motion for permission to file electronically (ECF No. 13) is denied.

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.