Lopez v. North Kern State Prison et al

Filing 18

ORDER denying Plaintiff's Motion for Service 17 signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 2/6/2018. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RODRIGO LOPEZ,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

Case No. 1:16-cv-00881-DAD-BAM (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR SERVICE

v.
(ECF No. 17)
NORTH KERN STATE PRISON, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
Plaintiff Rodrigo Lopez (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this

17
18

civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

19

On December 21, 2017, the Court screened Plaintiff’s first amended complaint and found

20

that Plaintiff stated a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant McDermott for the

21

failure to intervene while inmate Cancel was attacking Plaintiff. (ECF No. 10.) The Court also

22

issued findings and recommendations that all other claims and defendants be dismissed from this

23

action, and that this action proceed on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim against Defendant

24

McDermott for the failure to intervene while inmate Cancel was attacking Plaintiff. (Id.)

25

The findings and recommendations were served on all parties appearing in this action, and

26

contained notice that any objections were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service. (Id.

27

at 8.) Following an extension of time, Plaintiff filed objections on January 29, 2018. (ECF No.

28

14.)
1

1

On February 5, 2018, Plaintiff filed a letter to the Clerk of the Court stating that he had

2

submitted timely objections to the pending findings and recommendations, and therefore required

3

two additional summons and complaint forms for Defendants Kernan and Pennywell. (ECF No.

4

17.) The Court construes Plaintiff’s letter as a motion for service.

5

Plaintiff is advised that the Court’s findings and recommendations, as well as Plaintiff’s

6

objections, are currently pending before the assigned District Judge. As such, the Court has not

7

found that Plaintiff has stated cognizable claims against Defendant Kernan or Pennywell, and has

8

not directed service of process on these defendants. If Plaintiff is found to have stated a

9

cognizable claim against any of these defendants, Plaintiff will be sent the appropriate service

10

documents. The assigned District Judge will rule on the pending findings and recommendations

11

in due course.

12

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for service, (ECF No. 17), is HEREBY DENIED.

13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

February 6, 2018

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2