Plitt v. Gonzalez, et al.

Filing 12

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO SUBMIT SERVICE DOCUMENTS and USM-285 Forms. Service is appropriate for A. Gipson, N. Gennis, J. Yates. Clerk to send plaintiff: 3 Summons, 3 USM-285 Forms, -Notice of Submission of Documents, and 1 copies of the Complaint signed by Chief Judge B. Lynn Winmill on 12/31/2009. Case Management Deadline: 2/2/2010(Lundstrom, T)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA F R E S N O DIVISION B R Y A N T W. PLITT, ) ) P la in ti f f, ) ) vs. ) ) F R E S N O POLICE OFFICER R. ) GONZALEZ, et al., ) ) D e fe n d a n ts . ) _____________________________ )

C a s e No. 1:08-CV-1352-BLW ORDER

T he Court earlier required Plaintiff to submit summonses and USM-385 fo rms to the Clerk of Court. The Clerk of Court has noted on the docket that the s e rvic e documents are incomplete. Plaintiff has failed to list the address of the d e fe nd a nts on both the summonses and the USM-285 forms. Therefore, the Clerk s ha ll provide Plaintiff with a new set of three USM-285 forms, three summonses, a no tic e of submission of documents form, an instruction sheet, and a copy of the c o mp la int. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within thirty (30) days after entry of this O rd e r, Plaintiff shall complete the notice of submission of documents form and
INITIAL REVIEW ORDER 1

s ub mit the completed notice to the Court with the following documents: (1 ) one completed summons for each Defendant listed above against w ho m Plaintiff had been authorized to proceed; (2 ) o ne completed USM-285 form for each Defendant listed above against w ho m Plaintiff has been authorized to proceed; and (3 ) four copies of the complaint (one for each defendant and one extra for the U.S. Marshal). Fa ilure to submit these documents properly (including proper service a d d re s s e s ) may result in dismissal of this case without prejudice without further no tic e to Plaintiff. IT IS FURTHER HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for A p p o intme nt of Counsel (Docket No. 11) is DENIED without prejudice. The Court w ill reconsider appointment of counsel after Defendants have filed an answer. Presently, it appears that Plaintiff has articulated his claims and pursued his case in a n appropriate manner, and it does not appear that other extraordinary c irc ums ta nc e s exist that would warrant appointment of pro bono counsel at this time .

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER 2

DATED: December 31, 2009

Honorable B. Lynn Winmill Chief U. S. District Judge

INITIAL REVIEW ORDER 3