Samuelian v. U.S. District Court, et al.

Filing 17

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 7/7/2017 DIRECTING plaintiff to complete proper service of process by no later than 8/3/2017. A continued status Conference is set for 9/28/2017 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 25 (KJN) before Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman. A status report by all appearing parties shall be filed no later than 9/21/2017. The clerk is directed to serve 2 Order Setting Status Conference. Plaintiff's 12 Motion for Injunctive Relief is DENIED without prejudice. (Donati, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

SANDRA C. SAMUELIAN,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:17-cv-0401-JAM-KJN PS

v.

ORDER

U.S. DISTRICT COURT, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
Plaintiff Sandra Samuelian, proceeding without counsel, commenced this action on

18
19

February 23, 2017, and paid the filing fee. (ECF No. 1.)1 Plaintiff names the United States

20

District Court, the United States Government, the United States Bankruptcy Court, and the

21

California Department of Justice as defendants. (Id.) The complaint is devoid of any specific

22

factual allegations, but liberally construed, appears to seek some type of tax refund from the

23

Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) and/or the California Franchise Tax Board. (Id.) The

24

complaint and numerous subsequent “notices” and other filings in the case contain voluminous

25

copies of tax records, personal checks, Social Security statements, and other financial documents.

26

On May 10, 2017, plaintiff also filed a “motion for injunctive relief,” but the motion does not

27
28

1

Plaintiff has consented to proceed before a United States Magistrate Judge for all purposes
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (ECF No. 3.)
1

1

actually seek any type of injunctive relief; only monetary awards from various named defendants

2

and non-defendants. (ECF No. 12.)
On February 24, 2017, the court issued an “Order Setting Status Conference.” (ECF No.

3
4

2.) The order directed plaintiff to “complete service of process on defendants named in the

5

complaint within 90 days from the date of this order. Plaintiff is cautioned that this action may be

6

dismissed if service of process is not accomplished within 90 days from the date that the

7

complaint is filed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).” (Id. at 1.)

8
9

That same order set a status (pre-trial scheduling) conference for July 6, 2017, at 10:00
a.m., and stated that “[a]ll parties shall appear by counsel or in person if acting without counsel.”

10

(ECF No. 2 at 2.) The order also directed the parties to file a status report addressing specific

11

topics no later than seven (7) days prior to the status conference. (Id. at 2-3.) The order

12

specifically cautioned that “[f]ailing to obey federal or local rules, or [an] order of this court, may

13

result in dismissal of this action. This court will construe pro se pleadings liberally, but pro se

14

litigants must comply with the procedural rules.” (Id. at 3.)

15

No status report was filed prior to the status conference, and no defendant has yet

16

appeared in this case. Nevertheless, plaintiff personally appeared at the July 6, 2017 status

17

conference. She acknowledged that she had not filed the required status report and had not yet

18

served any of the named defendants, because she was unfamiliar with federal court procedures.

19

The court is sympathetic to the difficulties faced by pro se litigants in representing themselves in

20

federal court, and therefore declines to impose any sanctions at this juncture. That said, the court

21

cannot provide plaintiff with legal advice, and although the court liberally construes the pleadings

22

and filings of pro se litigants, they are required to comply with all procedural rules, including the

23

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and this court’s Local Rules.2
In light of plaintiff’s pro se status, the court provides plaintiff with one final opportunity

24
25

to properly complete service of process on the named defendants, consistent with the Federal

26

Rules of Civil Procedure, including but not limited to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(2)

27
28

2

A copy of this court’s Local Rules can be obtained from the Clerk’s Office on the fourth floor or
on the court’s website at http://www.caed.uscourts.gov/caednew/index.cfm/rules/local-rules/.
2

1

[outlining who may serve process], (i) [outlining how to serve the United States and its agencies],

2

and (j) [outlining how to serve a state or local government]. The court also continues the status

3

(pretrial scheduling) conference, as outlined below.
Finally, the court denies plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief without prejudice. As

4
5

noted above, plaintiff’s motion actually seeks monetary relief and not injunctive relief.

6

Moreover, based on the present record, the court cannot find that plaintiff has shown a likelihood

7

of success on the merits, or at least the existence of serious questions going to the merits,

8

sufficient to grant injunctive relief. See Pimentel v. Dreyfus, 670 F.3d 1096, 1111 (9th Cir.

9

2012).

10

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

11

1. Plaintiff shall complete proper service of process, consistent with the Federal Rules of

12

Civil Procedure, on all named defendants and file a proof of service with the court no

13

later than August 3, 2017. Failure to timely and properly complete service of process

14

may result in dismissal of the action.

15

2. A continued status (pretrial scheduling) conference is set for Thursday September 28,

16

2017, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom No. 25 before Judge Newman. A status report by

17

all appearing parties, addressing the specific topics outlined in the court’s February 24,

18

2017 order setting status conference (ECF No. 2 at pp. 2-3), shall be filed no later than

19

September 21, 2017. Failure to timely file a status report and/or failure to appear at

20

the status conference may result in dismissal of the action.

21
22

3. The Clerk of Court shall serve on plaintiff another courtesy copy of the court’s
February 24, 2017 order setting status conference (ECF No. 2) along with this order.

23

4. Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief (ECF No. 12) is denied without prejudice.

24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25

Dated: July 7, 2017

26
27
28
3