Pellegrino v. Meredith, et al.

Filing 12

ORDER ORDERING the Order to Show Cause, document 7 , DISCHARGED in light of the dismissal of this matter. Order signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 5/14/2015. (Rooney, M)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTHONY JOHN PELLEGRINO, Plaintiff, 12 ORDER RE ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE v. 13 14 Case No. 1:15-cv-00218-LJO-SAB LYNN R. MEREDITH, et al., Defendants. 15 16 17 On April 15, 2015, the Court issued an order to show cause directed at Plaintiff Anthony 18 John Pellegrino (“Plaintiff”) regarding the proofs of service filed by Plaintiff on April 13, 2015. 19 (ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff filed a written response to the order to show cause on May 12, 2015. 20 (ECF No. 9.) 21 The Court ordered Plaintiff to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed for 22 apparent misrepresentations made in the proofs of service filed by Plaintiff. Plaintiff’s April 13 23 proofs of service stated that summonses had been served on Defendant Lynn R. Meredith and 24 Defendant County of Stanislaus by Plaintiff’s agent for service of process, Natalia M. Bower. 25 However, the Court never issued any summonses for Defendant Meredith or Defendant County 26 of Stanislaus. Accordingly, no valid summonses could have been served by Plaintiff or his agent 27 for service of process. 28 / / / 1 Plaintiff’s response to the order to show cause indicates that Plaintiff does not understand 1 2 the issue presented by the Court. Plaintiff’s response states only that he received proof of service 3 forms from a clerk of this Court and Plaintiff filled them out and filed them. Plaintiff writes that 4 “Plaintiff believes the form is the correct form and had no intention to submit fraudulent forms, 5 or to defraud the Court in any way.” (Resp. to: Order to Show Cause Why Sanctions Should Not 6 Be Issued Against Pl., at pg. 2:5-6.) The Court does not accept Plaintiff’s explanation. 7 The proof of service form is a 8 representation to the Court that a valid summons was served on the defendants. Plaintiff never 9 received a valid summons from the Court so whatever he served on the defendants in this action 10 was either a counterfeit summons or a document that was not a summons at all. In either case, 11 Plaintiff should not have filed a proof of service form informing the Court that a summons had 12 been served. However, in light of the dismissal of Plaintiff’s action, the Court declines to impose any 13 14 sanctions against Plaintiff. Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that the Court’s April 15, 15 2015 order to show cause is DISCHARGED. 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 Dated: May 14, 2015 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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?