Gupta v. Cate et al

Filing 43

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 11/19/13 ORDERING that Plaintiffs request to have defendants Blackshear and Barton served at their last known address as provided by defendants counsel (ECF No. 33 ) is granted on the terms that follow; Plaintiffs and defendants requests (ECF Nos. 33 , 34 ) for the addresses to be filed under seal will be denied for the parties failure to comply with the applicable rule for seeking a sealing order. Defendants counsel need not file the addresses; instead, the Clerk of the Court is directed to provide defendants with the USM-285 forms returned by plaintiff for service of defendants Blackshear and Barton; Counsel for defendants is then directed to fill in the last known addresses for those defendants and return the forms to the court forthwith so that the U.S. Marshal may be directed to serve the complaint upon them. (Dillon, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RAJ CHRISTOPHER GUPTA,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:12-cv-1693 AC P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

MATTHEW CATE, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S. § 1983.

18

Plaintiff has filed a request for the defendants to be able to provide the addressed of the remaining

19

unserved defendants, Barton and Blackshear, under seal. ECF No. 36. Attached to the request is

20

a response from counsel for those defendants who have been served to plaintiff’s request for

21

discovery of the unserved defendants’ last known addresses. In that letter, counsel indicated

22

willingness to provide the addresses to the court if plaintiff seeks an order permitting them to be

23

filed under seal. Id. at Exh. B. In response to plaintiff’s request, defendants state that they can

24

provide the last known addresses of the former correctional officers but request that the addresses

25

be ordered filed under seal. ECF No. 37. Neither plaintiff nor the defendants have complied with

26

the procedures for requesting a sealing order from the court. See L.R. 141. The request to seal

27

will be denied; however, the court will direct that the Clerk of the Court provide the USM-285

28

forms for defendants Blackshear and Barton, which plaintiff has returned to the court, to
1

1

defendants’ counsel. Defendants’ counsel must fill in the addresses for these individuals and

2

return the forms to the court for the U.S. Marshal to effect service of process.

3

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

4

1. Plaintiff’s request to have defendants Blackshear and Barton served at their last known

5

address as provided by defendants’ counsel (ECF No. 33) is granted on the terms that follow;

6

2. Plaintiff’s and defendants’ requests (ECF Nos. 33, 34) for the addresses to be filed

7

under seal will be denied for the parties’ failure to comply with the applicable rule for seeking a

8

sealing order. See L.R. 141;

9

3. Defendants’ counsel need not file the addresses; instead, the Clerk of the Court is

10

directed to provide defendants with the USM-285 forms returned by plaintiff for service of

11

defendants Blackshear and Barton;

12

4. Counsel for defendants is then directed to fill in the last known addresses for those

13

defendants and return the forms to the court forthwith so that the U.S. Marshal may be directed to

14

serve the complaint upon them.

15

DATED: November 19, 2013

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2