Rushdan v. Perbula et al

Filing 55

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 9/16/09 ORDERING that pltf's 53 motion for service is DENIED; pltf is GRANTED 30 days to file either an ifp application or a short declaration stating his intention to attempt service of dfts. (Yin, K)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Plaintiff, 12 vs. 13 TOM PERBULA, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 / 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has paid the filing fee. On August 12, 2009, the court granted plaintiff thirty days to either file an in forma pauperis application or a short declaration stating his intention to attempt service of defendants. The court informed plaintiff that if it granted his application to proceed in forma pauperis, it would order service by the U.S. Marshal. On August 26, 2009, plaintiff filed a "motion of service of complaint." Plaintiff states that he will pay for the cost of service of the complaint by either the Clerk of the Court or the U.S. Marshal. Plaintiff is informed that there is no procedure by which he may pay the U.S. Marshal or the Clerk to serve the complaint. The Clerk of the Court is unable to serve a 1 ORDER No. CIV S-06-0729 GEB GGH P IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SALADAN RUSHDAN, aka, ROBERT WOODS, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 complaint. If plaintiff wants the U.S. Marshal to serve the complaint, he must file an application to proceed in forma pauperis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff's motion for service (no. 53) is denied; 2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days to file either an in forma pauperis application or a short declaration stating his intention to attempt service of defendants. DATED: September 16, 2009 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows 9 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2 rush729.ord(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?