Demerson v. Woodford et al

Filing 73

ORDER GRANTING 72 Motion to Proceed IFP; ORDER DENYING Motions to Compel 69 , 70 & 71 , signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 11/19/2010. (Marrujo, C)

(PC) Demerson v. Woodford et al

Doc. 73

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Plaintiff Edward Demerson, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action 18 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on January 29, 2008. Pursuant to the Court's order filed June 22, 2010, 19 Plaintiff was required to effect service of process on Defendants Phillips, Campos, Amaro, Clausing, 20 Bardonnex, Munoz, Cartagina, Gregory, and Hillard within one-hundred twenty days. On October 21 25 and 26, 2010, Plaintiff filed three motions relating to service of his second amended complaint. 22 All three motions concern the request for the issuance of an order compelling the Litigation 23 Coordinator at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility (CSATF) to accept or waive 24 service on the behalf of Defendants. Plaintiff asserts that Defendants are being evasive, and he will 25 file a motion for entry of default if they fail to respond. On November 15, 2010, Plaintiff filed a 26 motion seeking leave to proceed in forma pauperis with service of the summonses and second 27 amended complaint by the United States Marshal. 28 1
Dockets.Justia.com

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EDWARD DEMERSON, Plaintiff, v. JEANNE S. WOODFORD, et al., Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:08-cv-00144-LJO-SMS PC ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (Doc. 72) ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO COMPEL LITIGATION COORDINATOR TO EXECUTE WAIVERS OF SERVICE (Docs. 69-71) /

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

The Litigation Coordinator has no obligation to accept or waive service for Defendants, and Plaintiff's motions are without merit. In light of Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, however, the issue of Plaintiff's inability to complete service is now moot, lack of merit to his motions notwithstanding. Good cause having been shown, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, filed November 15, 2010, is GRANTED;1 and 2. Plaintiff's motions to compel the Litigation Coordinator to accept or waive service on Defendants' behalf are DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: icido3 November 19, 2010 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The filing fee was paid in full on March 18, 2008. Therefore, collection of the filing fee from Plaintiff's tr u s t account by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation is not necessary.

1

2