James v. Mehta

Filing 32

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dale A. Drozd on 7/5/11. The Clerk shall send Plaintiff one USM-285 Form; Within 30 days from the date of this order, Plaintiff shall complete the attached Notice of Submission of Documents and submit it with the completed USM-285 form for Defendant Dr. Williams; Plaintiff's MOTION for Clarification 30 is GRANTED. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

CHARLES CORNELIUS JAMES,

11
12
13
14

Plaintiff,
vs.
DEEPAK MEHTA, et al.,
Defendants.

15
16
17
18

No. CIV S-10-1171 LKK DAD P

ORDER
/

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding through counsel with an action filed
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Prior to appointing counsel in this case, the court found that plaintiff’s second

19

amended complaint appeared to state cognizable claims against defendants Mehta, Dhillon, Pai,

20

Capitano, Uppal, Bick, Aguilera, Andreasen, and Williams and ordered plaintiff to complete and

21

return the documents necessary to effect service on those defendants. Counsel for plaintiff

22

recently filed a motion for clarification noting that two of the named defendants in this case have

23

the last name Williams. Counsel seeks clarification from the court as to whether service is

24

appropriate with respect to both defendant Dr. Williams and defendant Nurse Williams.

25

After reviewing plaintiff’s second amended complaint and the court’s screening

26

order of that complaint, the court has determined that service is appropriate as to both of these
1

1

defendants and will order additional service for defendant Dr. Williams. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983 &

2

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). Plaintiff has already submitted the USM-285 form for defendant Nurse

3

Williams.

4

The court previously agreed to delay service of the defendants in this case until

5

the judge presiding in plaintiff’s earlier-filed action ruled on plaintiff’s motion to amend pending

6

in that case. If granted leave to amend in his earlier-filed action, plaintiff indicated that he would

7

seek to voluntarily dismiss this case. Counsel for plaintiff has filed a status report informing the

8

court that plaintiff’s motion to amend in his earlier-filed action has been denied. Accordingly, as

9

soon as plaintiff submits documents necessary for service for defendant Dr. Williams, the court

10

will order the United States Marshal to effect service on all of the defendants in this case.

11

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

12

1. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff one USM-285 form;

13

2. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the

14

attached Notice of Submission of Documents and submit it with the completed USM-285 form

15

for defendant Dr. Williams;

16

3. Plaintiff shall not attempt to effect service of the complaint on the defendant or

17

request a waiver of service of summons from the defendant. Upon receipt of the above-described

18

documents, the court will direct the United States Marshal to serve the above-named defendant

19

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 without payment of costs; and

20
21

4. Plaintiff’s motion for clarification (Doc. No. 30) is granted.
DATED: July 5, 2011.

22
23
24
25
26

DAD:9
jame1171.clar

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

CHARLES CORNELIUS JAMES,

11
12

Plaintiff,

No. CIV S-10-1171 LKK DAD P

vs.

13

DEEPAK MEHTA et al.,

14

NOTICE OF SUBMISSION

Defendant.

OF DOCUMENTS

15

/

16
17

Plaintiff hereby submits the following document in compliance with the court’s
order filed

18

:
one completed USM-285 form for defendant Dr. Williams.

19
20

DATED:

.

21
22
23

Plaintiff

24
25
26
3