Klein v. Conanan

Filing 37

ORDER GRANTING In Part Plaintiff's 34 Request for Re-Service; ORDER DIRECTING Clerk to Re-Serve Plaintiff With the Court's Order of September 3, 2014 (Doc. 25 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 12/15/2014. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MICHAEL KLEIN,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

vs.

1:13-cv-00600-GSA-PC
ORDER GRANTING IN PART
PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR RESERVICE
(Doc. 34.)

DR. CONANAN,

15

Defendant.

16
17

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO RESERVE PLAINTIFF WITH THE
COURT’S ORDER OF SEPTEMBER 3,
2014
(Doc. 25.)

18
19
20
21

I.

BACKGROUND

22

Michael Klein (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

23

with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case now proceeds on the initial

24

Complaint, filed by Plaintiff on April 25, 2013, against defendant Dr. Conanan (“Defendant”)

25

for inadequate medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. 1.)

26

The parties to this action have consented to the jurisdiction of the undersigned

27

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 636(c), to conduct all further proceedings in this case.

28

(Docs. 5, 15.)

1

On December 8, 2014, Plaintiff filed a request for the court to re-serve him three of his

2

case documents, Documents 25, 26, and 28. (Doc. 34.)

3

II.

DISCUSSION

4

Document 25

5

Document 25 is the court’s order issued on September 3, 2014, denying Defendant’s

6

Rule 12(b) Motion to Dismiss. Plaintiff asserts that he did not receive a copy of this order.

7

The court’s docket reflects two attempts by the court, on September 3, 2014 and September 10,

8

2014, to serve Plaintiff with a copy of this order at his address of record at Avenal State Prison,

9

P.O. Box 900, Avenal, CA 93204, with the order being returned to the court both times as

10

undeliverable. Plaintiff asserts that he knows no reason the mail would be undeliverable at that

11

address, and the court successfully served Plaintiff with subsequent court orders at the P.O.

12

Box 900 address. (Court Record.)

13

address. Based on this record and Plaintiff’s assertions, the court finds good cause to re-serve

14

Document 25 upon Plaintiff at his address of record. Therefore, Plaintiff request for re-service

15

of Document 25 is granted.

Plaintiff has not notified the court of any change in his

16

Document 26

17

There is no document associated with docket entry 26. Docket entry 26 is simply a

18

notice on the docket that the court’s mail to Plaintiff [Document 25] was returned as

19

undeliverable on September 18, 2014. The reference on the docket to an abstract of judgment

20

was entered in error and has been removed from the docket entry. Therefore, Plaintiff’s request

21

for re-service of document 26 is denied.

22

Document 28

23

Document 28 is the court’s Discovery and Scheduling Order issued in this case on

24

October 8, 2014. Plaintiff asserts that he did not receive a copy of this order; however, Plaintiff

25

indicates in Document 35, filed subsequently on December 12, 2014, that he finally received a

26

copy of the order on December 7, 2014.

27

Document 28 is denied as moot.

28

///

Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for re-service of

1

III.

CONCLUSION

2

Based on the foregoing and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

3

1.

4
5

Plaintiff’s request for copies, filed on December 8, 2014, is GRANTED in part;
and

2.

The Clerk is DIRECTED to re-serve a copy of the court’s September 3, 2014

6

Order Denying Defendant’s Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss upon Plaintiff at

7

his address of record (Document 25).

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

23
24
25
26
27
28

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

December 15, 2014

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE