Gonzalez v. Bopari et al

Filing 30

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 29 Motion for Return of Service Documents, signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 8/25/2014. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10
11

CLEOFAS GONZALEZ,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
vs.
DR. BOPARI, et al.,

15

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:12cv01053 LJO DLB PC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR RETURN OF SERVICE
DOCUMENTS
(Document 29)

16
17

Plaintiff Cleofas Gonzalez (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

18

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

19

June 28, 2012.

20
21
22

On April 23, 2014, the Court screened Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint and found
that it stated a claim against Defendants Bopari and Grimm. On May 9, 2014, after Plaintiff
completed and returned service documents, the Court ordered the United States Marshal to

23

initiate service of process.
24
25
26
27

On August 20, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for return of service documents from the
United States Marshal. Plaintiff believes that an inordinate amount of time has elapsed without
return of service.

28
1

1
2
3
4

Plaintiff is informed, however, that the Court will not issue further orders to the United
States Marshal to expedite service. Service is dependent upon locating a defendant, which in
some instances, can take quite some time. Moreover, the Marshal, like this Court, is tasked with
handling a large number of pro se cases where the plaintiff is proceeding pro se.

5

Until such time as the United States Marshal returns service and informs the Court
6
7
8
9
10

whether service was successful, the Court will not issue any further orders. The Court also notes
that a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis, and for whom service is performed by officers of
the court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), has no ability to dictate how that service shall lawfully
be accomplished.

11

The Court will keep Plaintiff informed and will notify him if service issues arise.

12

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

13
14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Dennis

August 25, 2014

L. Beck

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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