Bowers v. City of Porterville et al

Filing 13

ORDER STRIKING Answers to Plaintiff's Complaint 8 9 , signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 5/10/2024. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MARK K. BOWERS,
Plaintiff,

12
13

Case No. 1:23-cv-01483-KES-SAB
ORDER STRIKING ANSWERS TO
PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

v.
(ECF Nos. 5, 8, 9, 10, 11)

14
15

CITY OF PORTERVILLE, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this action. In the Court’s order

18 on November 7, 2023 granting Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court
19 ordered that “[s]ervice shall not be undertaken until the Court screens the complaint in due
20 course and issues its screening order.” (ECF No. 5 at 2.)
21

On May 9, 2024, the Court screened the complaint finding Plaintiff’s complaint did not

22 comply with Rule 8 and failed to state a cognizable claim. (ECF No. 12.) The Court has
23 afforded Plaintiff the opportunity to amend his complaint to cure the deficiencies.
24

However, prior to the screening order, the Court received two documents entitled

25 “answer to summons in civil action complaint” from individuals who Plaintiff named as
26 defendants in his complaint, Jesus Luna and Ariana Luna,. (ECF Nos. 8, 9.) No summonses
27 have been issued in this action directing any defendant to appear. See Fed. Rule. Civ. P. 4(a)(1)
28 (a summons must, inter alia, be signed by the Clerk, bear the Court’s seal, and state the time

1

1 within which the defendant must appear and defend).
2

It appears Plaintiff served his complaint prior to the Court’s screening order and without

3 summonses issued by the Clerk. Pursuant to this Court’s order, service was not to be undertaken
4 until this Court issued a screening order and authorized service. (ECF No. 5.) No summons has
5 been issued by the Clerk and no defendant has been ordered to appear in this action. The Court
6 shall therefore strike the documents entitled “answer to summons in civil action complaint”
7 (ECF Nos. 8, 9).
8

Plaintiff is reminded he must be familiar with the federal rules of procedure and comply

9 with Court orders when litigating his action.
10

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

11

1.

The answer by Jesus Luna III to Plaintiff’s complaint prior to the screening order
(ECF No. 8) is STRICKEN from the record; and

12
2.

13

The answer by Ariana Luna to Plaintiff’s complaint prior to the screening order
(ECF No. 9) is STRICKEN from the record.

14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17 Dated:

May 10, 2024
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2