Simmons v. Hedgpeth
Filing
118
ORDER DIRECTING Clerk of Court to Re-Send Court's Second Order Directing Service by the United States Marshals Service Without Prepayment of Costs, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 3/6/2015. (Marrujo, C)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
CHRISTOPHER I. SIMMONS,
12
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
GRISSOM, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
17
18
19
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 1:07-cv-01058-LJO-SAB (PC)
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO
RE-SEND COURT’S SECOND ORDER
DIRECTING SERVICE BY THE UNITED
STATES MARSHALS SERVICE WITHOUT
PREPAYMENT OF COSTS
[ECF No. 83]
Plaintiff Christopher I. Simmons is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On May 21, 2014, the Court issued a second order directing service by the United States
20
marshal. (ECF No. 83.) Pursuant to request by the United States marshal, the Court will hereby direct
21
re-service of the order to initiate re-service as to Defendants Leslie A. Sauceda, T. Ellstrom, and
22
Rufino, along with the documents submitted by Plaintiff to assist in locating and serving the un-served
23
Defendants (ECF No. 81).
24
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
25
1.
The Clerk of Court is directed to re-serve a copy of the following documents on the
26
United States marshal:
27
a.
The Court’s May 21, 2014 second service order (ECF No. 83);
28
1
b.
1
A copy of the USM-285 forms as to Defendants Leslie A. Sauceda (ECF No.
65), Rufino (ECF No. 66), and T. Ellstrom (ECF No. 68);
2
c.
3
A copy of the documents submitted by Plaintiff to assist the United States
marshal with service (ECF No. 81); and
4
2.
5
All provisions of the Court’s May 21, 2014, order remain in full force and effect.
6
7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
8
Dated:
9
March 6, 2015
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?