(PS)Seneka v. County of Yolo et al

Filing 21

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 11/18/2020 DENYING 4 Request to have the USM serve the summonses in this case and DENYING 4 Request to use the court's electronic filing system. (Huang, H)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SHANA SENEKA, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 2:20-cv-1621 TLN-CKD-PS v. ORDER COUNTY OF YOLO, et. al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 18 and has paid the filing fee. (ECF No 1.) On August 4, 2020, plaintiff filed a motion for service of 19 process by the United States Marshal and for permission to utilize the Court’s electronic filing 20 system. (ECF No. 4.) On the same day, plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint which was 21 served by a process server on defendants CWS, S. Shabazz, Godwin, Green, Chapin, Nelson, 22 Morris, Maciel, Kraft, Henberger, Jakowski, G. Shabazz, Yolo County District Attorney, Josefina 23 Elliott, Woodland Police Department, Fair, Elliott, Gutherie, Moe, Moore, West, Kulp, Hiatt, 24 Magee, Sandy, Gage, Mooney, California Health and Human Resources, California Department 25 of Social Services, California Foster Care Ombudsperson, and the Attorney General of California. 26 (ECF Nos. 5 and 9.) 27 //// 28 1 1 On October 13, 2020, defendants filed a motion to dismiss (ECF Nos. 8, 10, 11, 12), 2 originally set for hearing on December 9, 2020. That date was subsequently continued to January 3 13, 2021. (ECF Nos. 19.) 4 5 6 First, as to plaintiff’s request to have the United States Marshal’s serve the summons on the defendants, that motion is now moot and will be denied as such. Second, as to plaintiff’s request to use the electronic case management/filing system 7 (CM/ECF), the court will deny that request at this time. “Any person appearing pro se may not 8 utilize electronic filing except with the permission of the assigned Judge or Magistrate Judge.” 9 E.D. Cal. L.R. 133(b)(2) (emphasis in original). The court finds no reason in the present case to 10 deviate from this general rule. Therefore, plaintiff’s request to use the electronic case 11 management/filing system (ECF No. 4) is denied. 12 Finally, it appears from the court’s records that defendants California Commission on 13 Judicial Performance has not been served with the First Amended Complaint. Plaintiff is hereby 14 notified that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) requires service within 90 days of the filing of 15 an action. Failure to comply may result in a recommendation of dismissal as to this defendant. 16 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 17 1. 18 19 20 21 22 Plaintiff’s request to have the United States Marshal serve the summonses in this case (ECF No. 4) is denied. 2. Plaintiff’s request to use the court’s electronic filing system (ECF No. 4) is denied. Dated: November 18, 2020 _____________________________________ CAROLYN K. DELANEY UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 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?