Kemper v. Pie, et al.
Filing
34
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 6/29/15 DENYING 32 Motion for Sanctions. (Dillon, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
WINSTON KEMPER,
12
13
14
No. 2:14-cv-0305 KJN P
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
DR. CROSSON, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
17
Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se, with a civil rights action pursuant to 42
18
U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff consented to proceed before the undersigned for all purposes. See 28
19
U.S.C. § 636(c).
20
On June 8, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion for sanctions. Plaintiff claims that on March 4,
21
2015, the court ordered defendants “to submit summary judgment statements” within 60 days.
22
(ECF No. 32.) Because defendants have not filed such statements, plaintiff asks the court to
23
impose sanctions. However, plaintiff is mistaken. On March 4, 2015, the court ordered the U.S.
24
Marshal to serve process on defendants. If defendants do not waive services of process, the U.S.
25
Marshal is required to personally serve process on defendants. Once service of process is
26
accomplished, the U.S. Marshal will return summons. Defendants are not required to file a
27
responsive pleading until after service of process is accomplished, and their deadline to respond
28
varies depending on whether they waive service or are personally served. At this point, summons
1
1
demonstrating that service of process has been accomplished have not yet been filed, so no
2
deadline is presently pending for either defendant. Thus, plaintiff’s motion for sanctions is
3
denied. Once defendants have filed an answer, the court will issue a scheduling order that will set
4
deadlines for the filing of dispositive motions, including motions for summary judgment.
5
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for sanctions is denied
6
without prejudice.
7
Dated: June 29, 2015
8
9
10
/kemp0305.san
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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?