Benyamini v. Blackburn et al

Filing 14

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 7/10/2013 STRIKING plaintiff's 11 submission; the Clerk shall RE-ISSUE to plaintiff one USM-285 form for each defendant, one summons, a copy of the complaint, an appropriate form for consent t o trial by a magistrate judge, this court's status order, and the court's 4/22/13 order; plaintiff has 21 days to comply with the instructions in the court's 4/22/13 order; and plaintiff's 13 motion for permission to file electronically is DENIED. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ROBERT BENYAMINI,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:13-cv-0205 MCE AC

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

M. BLACKBURN, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

On April 22, 2013, the undersigned granted plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma

18

pauperis and ordered plaintiff to supply the United States Marshall, within 15 days, “all

19

information needed by the Marshall to effect service of process,” and to file with the court “a

20

statement. . . . that said documents have been submitted to the United States Marshall.” ECF No.

21

8 at 2. The order further stated that the court anticipated that the U.S. Marshall would require, at

22

a minimum, (1) one completed summons for each defendant; (2) one completed USM-285 form

23

for each defendant; (3) one copy of the endorsed complaint for each defendant, with an extra copy

24

for the U.S. Marshall; (4) one copy of the court’s status order for each defendant; and (5) one

25

copy of the April 22, 2013 order for each defendant. Id. at 3.

26

Plaintiff has not fully complied with the court’s April 22, 2013 order. Instead, he has filed

27

with the court copies of the summons for each defendant and copies of the USM-285 form for

28

each defendant, as well as incomplete copies of his complaint. He has not filed complete copies
1

1

of his complaint, nor has he provided copies of the court’s status order, or copies of the court’s

2

April 22, 2013 order. He has also not filed with the court a statement that he provided any

3

materials to the United States Marshall.

4

In addition, plaintiff has filed a motion for permission to file his documents electronically,

5

alleging that he filed a motion for such permission in November 2012, but that he has not yet

6

received a response. It is unclear in what action plaintiff filed his November 2012 motion, as the

7

instant action was not initiated until February 2013. In any event, while plaintiff alleges in

8

conclusory fashion that he is being prejudiced, he fails to articulate what prejudice he is suffering

9

because of his inability to file electronically, much less how such permission would alleviate the

10

prejudice. His motion will accordingly be denied.

11

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT

12

1. Plaintiff’s May 1, 2013 submission (ECF No. 11) is stricken;

13

2. The Clerk of the Court shall re-issue to plaintiff one USM-285 form for each

14

defendant, one summons, a copy of the complaint, an appropriate form for consent to

15

trial by a magistrate judge, this court’s status order, and the court’s April 22, 2013

16

order;

17

3. Plaintiff is given 21 days from the filing date of this order to comply with the

18

instructions in the court’s April 22, 2013 order, failing which the undersigned will

19

recommend that the action be dismissed without prejudice; and

20
21

4. Plaintiff’s motion for permission to file electronically (ECF No. 13) is denied.
DATED: July 10, 2013

22
23

___________________________________
ALLISON CLAIRE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28

AC:rb/beny0205.36

2