Rodriguez v. Hubbard et al

Filing 42

ORDER DENYING 39 , 40 Plaintiff's Motions for Service of Process by United States Marshal signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 10/23/2012. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

LUIS VALENZUELA RODRIGUEZ,

11

Plaintiff,

12

v.

13

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS BY
UNITED STATES MARSHAL
(ECF Nos. 39, 40)

SUSAN HUBBARD, et al.,

14

Case No. 1:10-cv-00858-DLB PC

Defendants.

15
16

Plaintiff Luis Valenzuela Rodriguez (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California

17

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this civil action

18

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 28, 2012, the Court screened Plaintiff’s third amended

19

complaint and found that it stated cognizable claims for relief against Defendants Susan Hubbard,

20

Cate, Harrington, Biter, Philips, Soto, Da Veiga, Ozaeta, M. Betzinger, Gregory, Garza, Wegman,

21

Alic, Grissom, Speidell, Davis, Foster, Freir, and Rankin. Plaintiff is not proceeding in forma

22

pauperis in this action, having paid the filing fee in full on July 30, 2010. Plaintiff was provided

23

with instructions for service of process, and all necessary documents to effect service.

24

Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s motions, filed October 11, 2012, and October 17,

25

2012, requesting to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff appears to seek the assistance of the United

26

States Marshals Service to effect service. Plaintiff contends that he had previously been granted in

27

forma pauperis status by the Court. However, a review of the Court’s docket indicates that Plaintiff

28

is not proceeding in forma pauperis.
1

1

Pursuant to Rule 4(c)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court may order that

2

service be made by the United States Marshals Service at the Plaintiff’s request. Such order remains

3

within the discretion of the Court because Plaintiff is not proceeding in forma pauperis. Plaintiff

4

contends that his incarcerated status will cause serious difficulties with service. However, Plaintiff

5

has failed to demonstrate that he is unable to serve Defendants in this action. Plaintiff has not

6

demonstrated any attempt to serve Defendants.
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motions to proceed in forma pauperis

7
8

and for service by the United States Marshal, filed October 11, 2012 and October 17, 2012, are

9

denied.

10
11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12

Dated:

/s/ Dennis

October 23, 2012

L. Beck

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13

DEAC_Signature-END:

14

3b142a

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2