Nuriddin v. Estrella et al

Filing 25

ORDER REGARDING Plaintiff's 24 Request for Clarification of the Summons and Service of Process by the United States Marshal, signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 10/9/14. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MUHAMMAD NURIDDIN,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
ESTRELLA, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:11-cv-01448-SAB (PC)
ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST
FOR CLARIFICATION OF THE SUMMONS AND
SERVICE OF PROCESS BY THE UNITED
STATES MARSHAL
[ECF No. 24]

Plaintiff Muhammad Nuriddin is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

17
18

action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Bivens actions and actions

19

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 “are identical save for the replacement of a state actor under § 1983 by a

20

federal actor under Bivens.” Van Strum v. Lawn, 940 F.2d 406, 409 (9th Cir. 1991).
On October 7, 2014, Plaintiff filed a request for clarification as to the summons and service of

21
22

process returned by the United States Marshal.

23

Inasmuch as the Court issued an order directing the United States Marshal to re-serve the

24

summons and complaint on Defendant Hector A. Rios, and an order to show cause regarding the

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///
1

1

service of process upon Defendants Bell and Miller, on October 1, 2014, respectively, Plaintiff’s

2

motion for clarification is MOOT and is DENIED on such basis.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.

5

Dated:

6

October 9, 2014
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2