Shepard v. Cohen et al

Filing 123

ORDER on Plaintiff's Motion for the (2) Addresses of Eric Cohen, Extension of Time to File Effective Service and Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed 119 , 122 , signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 10/31/16. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7
8

LAMONT SHEPARD,
Plaintiff,

9
10
11
12

1:11-cv-00535-DAD-EPG (PC)
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
THE (2) ADDRESSES OF ERIC COHEN,
EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE
EFFECTIVE SERVICE AND PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO PROCEED
(ECF NOS. 119 & 122)

v.
DR. COHEN,
Defendant.

30-DAY DEADLINE

13
14
15

Lamont Shepard (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

16

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 21, 2016, Plaintiff

17

filed a change of address and motion for the (2) addresses of Eric Cohen, extension of time to

18

file effective service (“Motion 1”). (ECF No. 119). On October 26, 2016, Plaintiff filed a

19

motion to proceed (“Motion 2”). (ECF No. 122)

20

According Motion 1, on August 2, 2016, Plaintiff was given defendant Dr. Cohen’s Los

21

Angeles and New York addresses. On that same day Plaintiff filed a motion with the Court to

22

effect service on one or both addresses of defendant Dr. Cohen. However, on September 5,

23

2016, Plaintiff was placed in Administrative Segregation, and was separated from his property.

24

On October 10, 2016, Plaintiff received the order authorizing service on defendant Dr. Cohen

25

(ECF No. 118), but was unable to respond because he did not have his property. On October

26

13, 2016, Plaintiff was transferred to California State Prison, Calipatria. Plaintiff looked

27

through his legal mail, but was unable to locate the addresses for defendant Dr. Cohen.

28

Accordingly, Plaintiff requested additional time so that he could find the addresses or get them
1

1

again. Plaintiff also requested that “Defendants” resubmit defendant Dr. Cohen’s addresses to

2

him.

3
4

According to Motion 2, Plaintiff found defendant Dr. Cohen’s address. Plaintiff stated
that service may proceed.

5

Motion 1 will be denied as moot, because Plaintiff has apparently found defendant

6

Cohen’s address, and has submitted the service documents (ECF No. 120). Motion 2 will be

7

denied because a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis does not need to file a motion for

8

service to proceed after submitting the service documents.

9

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Motion 1 and Motion 2 are denied.

10
11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

October 31, 2016

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2