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)

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