Dell v. Espinoza, et al.

Filing 30

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT Plaintiff's 19 Motion to Compel, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 07/6/17. (Martin-Gill, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 JONATHAN L. DELL, 11 12 13 14 Plaintiff, CASE No. 1:16-cv-1769-DAD-MJS (PC) ORDER DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO COMPEL v. (ECF NO. 19) R. ESPINOZA et al., Defendants. 15 16 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in a civil rights 17 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds against Corcoran State Prison 18 (“CSP”) Correctional Officers (“CO”) Espinoza and Roque, Sergeant James, Lt. 19 Martinez, and Dr. Barnett. 20 Defendants Barnett, James, Martinez, and Roque have been served, and they 21 filed an answer on June 9, 2017. (ECF No. 20.) CO Espinoza, however, has not yet 22 been served. It appears service was declined on the ground that CO Espinoza 23 separated from the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) in 24 2005, 9 years before the incident at issue in this case. (ECF No. 16.) 25 On May 17, 2017, the undersigned directed Plaintiff to provide correct information 26 about CO Espinoza for service of process. (ECF No. 18.) Plaintiff then filed a motion to 27 compel the CDCR to provide this Defendant’s last known address. (ECF No. 19.) Before 28 ruling on that motion, the undersigned directed Plaintiff to respond to the assertion that 1 1 CO Espinoza was terminated in 2005 and thus could not have been involved in the 2 incident giving rise to this case.. (ECF No. 24.) 3 In light of the Court’s last order, Defendants filed a response revealing that the 4 CSP Litigation Coordinator’s refusal to accept service for CO Espinoza was based on a 5 mistake. (ECF No. 27.) While service was declined on the ground that CO Espinoza 6 separated from CDCR in 2005, the Defendant had in fact separated in 2015. CO 7 Espinoza’s last known address has now been provided to the U.S. Marshal and service 8 is presently being attempted. 9 10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion to compel (ECF No. 19) is DENIED as moot. 11 12 13 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 6, 2017 /s/ Michael J. Seng UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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?