Buckins v. McCoy et al

Filing 25

DISREGARD - DUPLICATE FILED IN ERROR - ORDER REGARDING SERVICE ON DEBORAH M. WALKER (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 8/24/2017) Modified on 8/24/2017 (Illston, Susan).

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

DARRELL EDWARD BUCKINS,
Plaintiff,

8
9

ORDER RE. SERVICE ISSUES AND
VACATING BRIEFING SCHEDULE

v.

10

BRENDA MCCOY, et al.,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 16-cv-06157-SI

Defendants.

Re: Dkt. Nos. 1 and 23

12
13

In this pro se prisoner’s civil rights action, Darrell Buckins complained about his medical

14

care while he was housed at the Glenn Dyer Detention Facility in Oakland, California. Service of

15

process was ordered on eight defendants, but only one defendant (i.e., Alameda County) has

16

appeared in this action so far. Service of process apparently was attempted on other defendants at

17

various addresses provided by Buckins, but service was not attempted on the defendants at the jail.

18

Service will now be attempted at the jail.

19

Accordingly, the clerk shall issue a summons and the United States Marshal shall serve,

20

without prepayment of fees, the summons, a copy of the amended complaint, a copy of the order

21

of service, and a copy of this order upon each of the following defendants at the Glenn Dyer

22

Detention Facility at 550 6th Street, Oakland, CA 94607:

23

- Dr. Brenda McCoy
- Debra Walker (licensed vocational nurse)
- Jeffrey Cooper (physician’s assistant)
- Corizon Health Services, Inc.
- Dr. Harold Orr
- Dr. Maria Magat
- Alameda County Sheriff Gregory Ahern

24
25
26
27

Other than Sheriff Ahern, the individual defendants apparently work for Corizon Health Services,

28

Inc., the health care provider for the Glenn Dyer Detention Facility.

1

In light of the need to resolve the service of process problems for seven of the eight

2

defendants, the court now VACATES the briefing schedule for all defendants to file a motion for

3

summary judgment or other dispositive motion. Defendant Alameda County’s motion for an

4

extension of the deadline to file a dispositive motion is DISMISSED as moot because the briefing

5

schedule is now being vacated. (Docket No. 23.) Once the service of process problems are

6

resolved, the court will set a new briefing schedule so that all the defendants will be on the same

7

briefing schedule if possible.

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

A separate order is being issued today to deal with the potentially erroneous service on
defendant Walker.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 24, 2017
______________________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2