Sekona v. Horowitz et al

Filing 23

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis M. Cota on 1/02/20 DENYING 21 , 22 plaintiff's motions seeking an order directing defendants to respond to plaintiff's complaint. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

ETUATE SEKONA,

11
12
13
14

No. 2:17-CV-2479-JAM-DMC-P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

HOROWITZ,
Defendant.

15
16

Plaintiff, a prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to

17

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court are plaintiff’s motions seeking an order directing

18

defendants to respond to plaintiff’s complaint (ECF Nos. 21 and 22). A review of the docket

19

reflects that the court directed the United States Marshal to effect service of process on September

20

20, 2019. The docket does not, however, reflect that defendant has been served. Because

21

defendant has not been served, there is no obligation to respond to plaintiff’s complaint. For this

22

reason, plaintiff’s motions are denied.

23

IT IS SO ORDERED.

24
25

Dated: January 2, 2020
____________________________________
DENNIS M. COTA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26
27
28
1