Free v. Peikar et al

Filing 14

ORDER DIRECTING Plaintiff to Serve Defendants Dr. Nader Paikar, Lourdes Mettri, Lisa Fuentes-Arce, and Tyson signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 6/12/2017. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 11 12 13 14 1:17-cv-00159 MJS (PC) PAUL FREE, Plaintiff, v. ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO SERVE DEFENDANTS DR. NADER PAIKAR, LOURDES METTRI, LISA FUENTES-ARCE, AND TYSON DR. NADER PEIKAR, et al., Defendants. 15 16 Plaintiff is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil rights action pursuant to 17 Bivens vs. Six Unknown Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Plaintiff has consented to the 18 jurisdiction of a magistrate judge. 19 On May 3, 2017, Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint was screened and found to 20 state an Eighth Amendment medical indifference claim against Defendants Dr. Nader 21 Peikar, Lourdes Mettri, Lisa Fuentes-Arce, and Mr. Tyson. (ECF No. 12.) All other claims 22 were dismissed. Plaintiff was then directed to either file a notice of his willingness to 23 proceed on the amended pleading as screened or file a second amended complaint. 24 Plaintiff has now filed a notice of his willingness to proceed on the cognizable claims 25 identified in his First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 13.) 26 Plaintiff, who has paid the filing fee in full, is now responsible for serving the 27 Defendants with both a summons and his pleading within the time permitted under Rule 28 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This rule provides that: 1 If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period. 1 2 3 4 5 Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff shall proceed on his Eighth 6 7 Amendment medical indifference claim against Dr. Peikar, Ms. Mettri, Ms. Fuentes-Arce, 8 and Mr. Tyson. Plaintiff is directed to serve the Defendants within the time-frame 9 prescribed by Rule 4(m).1 10 11 IT IS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: June 12, 2017 /s/ Michael J. Seng UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 Plaintiff previously sought the assistance of the United States Marshal to effectuate service on the Defendants. (ECF No. 9.) In denying his motion, the Court informed Plaintiff that he was not automatically entitled to the Marshal’s assistance since he is not proceeding in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 12.) Instead, he was required to meet either a “reasonableness” or “good cause” standard for the court to appoint a marshal for service. He provided no basis for the appointment and so failed to meet either standard. In any renewed motion, Plaintiff must assert a sufficient rationale for the U.S. Marshal’s assistance in serving the Defendants. 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?