Atcherley v. Clark et al

Filing 46

ORDER Regarding 45 Notice by Wilbur Atcherley, signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 04/8/14. (Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10
11

WILLIAM ATCHERLEY,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

vs.
EDGAR CLARK, et al.,

15

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:12cv00225 DLB PC
ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S
MARCH 28, 2014, FILING
(Document 45)

16

Plaintiff William Atcherley (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

17
18

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed his complaint on

19

February 17, 2012.

20
21
22

On December 24, 2013, the Court ordered the United States Marshal to serve the
complaint on Defendants Alade, Anderson, Arbadia, Barbolla, Ceballo, Clark, Holt, Rios, Ross
and Torres.

23

On February 21, 2014, the Court ordered the United States Marshal to serve Defendant
24
25

Arbadia as “D. Abadia, LVN.” Service has not yet been returned.
On March 14, 2014, Defendants Ceballo, Barbolla, Holt, Rios, Torres and Ross filed an

26
27
28

answer to the complaint.1 Defendant Clark filed an answer on March 27, 2014.
1

Defendants refer to Defendant Ceballo as Ceballos, and Defendant Barbolla as Borbolla.
1

1
2
3
4

On March 28, 2014, Plaintiff filed an inquiry with the Court as to the service status of
Defendants Alade and Anderson. The Court does not generally respond to status requests, but as
service has been complicated in this action, the Court provides the following information.
As to Defendant Alade, the United States Marshal returned the executed waiver of

5

service on March 7, 2014. Defendant Alade has not yet filed an responsive pleading.
6
7
8
9

On March 31, 2014, the United States Marshal returned the executed waiver of service as
to Defendant Anderson. Defendant Anderson has not yet filed a responsive pleading.
Insofar as Plaintiff requests a copy of Local Rule 251 because it was referenced in the

10

Court’s Discovery and Scheduling Order, his request is denied. The Court specifically stated

11

that the meet and confer requirements of Local Rule 251(d) are waived and it is therefore not

12

applicable to this action.

13
14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Dennis

April 8, 2014

L. Beck

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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