Singleton, Sr. v. Jones et al

Filing 15

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 12 Motion for Service of Process by United States Marshall as Premature, signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 4/6/2011. (Gonzalez, R)

Download PDF
-SMS (PC) Singleton, Sr. v. Jones et al Doc. 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff Lamar Singleton, Sr., a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, filed the complaint in this action on May 27, 2010. The Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis on June 25, 2010. On March 17, 2011, the Court screened the complaint and dismissed it for failure to state a claim. Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff's request that the United States Marshal be directed to serve the complaint on Defendants, filed March 10, 2011. The Court will direct the United States Marshal to serve the complaint only after it has determined that the complaint contains cognizable claims for relief against the named defendants. There is currently no complaint pending before the Court. Until the Court has screened the complaint and found cognizable claims, any request for service by the Marshal is premature and will be denied. /// /// /// 1 Dockets.Justia.com UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT LAMAR SINGLETON, SR., Plaintiff, v. JONES, et al., Defendants. / CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00953-OWW-SMS ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS BY UNITED STATES MARSHALL AS PREMATURE (ECF No. 12) 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 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for service of process by the United States Marshal, filed March 10, 2011, is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: icido3 April 6, 2011 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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?