Wilhelm v. Rotman et al
Filing
34
ORDER ADDRESSING Plaintiff's Filings Regarding Service (Docs. 32 , 33 ) signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 3/8/2013. Plaintiff's Requests are DENIED. (Jessen, A)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
STEVEN HAIRL WILHELM,
1:10cv0001 DLB PC
8
Plaintiff,
9
v.
ORDER ADDRESSING PLAINTIFF’S
FILINGS REGARDING SERVICE
10
DR. A. ROTMAN, et al.,
(Documents 32, 33)
11
Defendants.
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Plaintiff Steven Hairl Wilhelm (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this
civil rights action filed on December 31, 2009. On July 12, 2012, the Court issued an order finding
service of the First Amended Complaint appropriate as to Defendant Dr. A. Rotman and requiring
Plaintiff to return service documents within thirty days.
Plaintiff submitted service documents on August 6, 2012, and this Court directed the United
States Marshal to serve Defendant Rotman by order dated August 15, 2012.
On December 10, 2012, Plaintiff filed a request for entry of default. The Court denied the
motion on December 31, 2012, explaining that Defendant’s obligation to respond had not yet been
triggered because the complaint had not been served.
On February 20, 2013, Plaintiff submitted a request for the Court to enforce its August 15,
2012, service order. On March 5, 2013, he submitted a request for the address of the United States
Marshal.
25
26
27
28
1
1
The Court has ordered the Marshal to serve the complaint and it cannot issue further orders to
2
do so. The Court will keep Plaintiff informed and will notify him if issues with service arise.
3
Plaintiff will also be informed immediately if Defendants are served.
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s requests are DENIED.
4
5
6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
7
Dated:
/s/ Dennis
March 8, 2013
L. Beck
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
8
DEAC_Signature-END:
9
3b142a
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?