Barry Lamon v. Tilton et al
Filing
32
ORDER Requiring Defendnat Mayugba to Comply With Previous Order Directing a Reply to the Complaint 30 , 31 , signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 8/18/11. Forty-Five Day Deadline. (Gonzalez, R)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9
BARRY LAMON,
10
Plaintiff,
11
12
CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00157-AWI-SKO PC
ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANT
MAYUGBA TO COMPLY WITH PREVIOUS
ORDER DIRECTING A REPLY TO THE
COMPLAINT
v.
JOHN TILTON, et al.,
(Docs. 30 and 31)
13
Defendants.
FORTY-FIVE DAY DEADLINE
14
/
15
16
Plaintiff Barry Lamon, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this
17
civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on January 26, 2009. This action is proceeding on
18
Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim against Defendant Birkholm and Plaintiff’s Eighth
19
Amendment medical care claim against Defendants Birkholm, Mayugba, and Schutt.
20
The United States Marshal was directed to initiate service on June 30, 2011, and on August
21
17, 2011, Defendant Mayugba filed a waiver of reply. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(1). Pursuant to the
22
Court’s order of June 30, 2011, Defendant is required to reply to the complaint. 42 U.S.C. §
23
1997e(g)(2). (Doc. 30, ¶6.) Therefore, Defendant SHALL file the reply in compliance with the
24
order within forty-five (45) days from the date of service of this order.
25
///
26
///
27
///
28
///
1
1
Additionally, as a waiver of service of the summons and complaint has not yet been filed in
2
this case, Defendant is directed as a courtesy to paragraph 5 of the June 30, 2011, order. If the
3
waiver form is not returned to the USM and personal service is effected, the cost of personal service
4
will be taxed against Defendant, notwithstanding the filing of a response to the complaint. (Id.)
5
6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
7
Dated:
ie14hj
August 18, 2011
/s/ Sheila K. Oberto
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
8
9
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?