Lancaster v. Pung et al
Filing
21
ORDER GRANTING 18 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO DISMISS DEFENDANT D. DECKER; DIRECTIONS TO CLERK. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on September 14, 2011. (mmcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/14/2011) (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/14/2011: # 1 Certficate of Service) (tlS, COURT STAFF).
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
)
)
)
Plaintiff.
)
)
v.
)
)
DR. AUNG, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________ )
DAVID GENE LANCASTER,
No. C 09-3230 MMC (PR)
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION TO DISMISS
DEFENDANT D. DECKER;
DIRECTIONS TO CLERK
(Docket No. 18)
On July 15, 2009, plaintiff, a California prisoner incarcerated at the Correctional
19 Training Facility at Soledad (“CTF”), and proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled civil
20 rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming deliberate indifference to his serious
21 medical needs by CTF prison officials in 2007. On June 14, 2011, the Court found defendant
22 D. Decker (“Decker”) had not been properly served and directed plaintiff, by July 20, 2011,
23 to provide the Court with proof of service on Decker or a declaration setting forth a current
24 address at which the Marshal is able to serve Decker.
25
On July 13, 2011, plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss Decker, on the ground that said
26 defendant could not be located. Defendants have filed a notice of non-opposition to the
27 motion to dismiss. Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion to dismiss D. Decker from the above28 titled action is hereby GRANTED, and the action as against said defendant is hereby
1 DISMISSED without prejudice.
2
The Clerk shall terminate D. Decker as a defendant on the court docket.
3
This order terminates Docket No. 18
4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
5 DATED: September 14, 2011
6
7
_________________________
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge
8
9
10
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?