Gilmore v. Augustus, et al.
Filing
11
ORDER DENYING Motions for Court to Order Immediate Service and Set Pretrial Deadlines 4 , 9 , signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 2/20/13. (Hellings, J)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10
C. DWAYNE GILMORE,
11
12
13
14
1:12-cv-00925-GSA-PC
Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR COURT
TO ORDER IMMEDIATE SERVICE AND SET
PRETRIAL DEADLINES
v.
D. AUGUSTUS, et al.,
(Docs. 4, 9.)
Defendants.
/
15
16
C. Dwayne Gilmore (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis
17
in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint
18
commencing this action on June 7, 2012. (Doc. 1.) On June 7, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for the
19
court to initiate service of process and set pretrial deadlines in this action. (Doc. 4.) On June 29,
20
2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for an order directing service. (Doc. 9.)
21
The court is required by law to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against
22
a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity, such as the instant action
23
brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint
24
or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail
25
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who
26
is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2).
27
With respect to service, the court will, sua sponte, direct the United States Marshal to serve
28
the complaint only after the court has screened the complaint and determined that it contains
1
1
cognizable claims for relief against the named defendants. On February 20, 2013, after screening
2
Plaintiff’s Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court dismissed the Complaint for failure
3
to state a claim, with leave to amend. (Doc. 10.) Thus, the Court determined that the Complaint did
4
not contain any cognizable claims, and therefore it is not time for service in this action.
5
As a rule, pretrial deadlines are not set until after one or more of the defendants files an
6
Answer. In this case, none of the defendants have filed an Answer. Therefore, it is not time for the
7
Court to set pretrial deadlines in this action.
8
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motions for immediate
9
service and for the Court to set pretrial deadlines, filed on June 7, 2012 and June 29, 2012, are
10
DENIED.
11
12
13
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
6i0kij
February 20, 2013
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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?