Decoteau v. Houston et al

Filing 17

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - In light of the foregoing, the clerk's office is directed to term the 16 MOTION for Status. Ordered by Judge John M. Gerrard. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(MKR)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
CHRISTOPHER L. DECOTEAU,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
ROBERT HOUSTON, MICHAEL
)
KENNEY, Director, RANDY KOHL, )
Medical Director, DIANE SABAKA )
RHINE, Warden, CHRISTINA
)
FERGUSON, Doctor, and CHARLES )
COREN, Eye Clinic,
)
)
Defendants.
)

4:14CV3165

MEMORANDUM
AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on correspondence from Plaintiff seeking
information about service of process in this matter. The court is required to review
in forma pauperis complaints to determine whether summary dismissal is appropriate.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The court must dismiss a complaint or any portion
thereof that states a frivolous or malicious claim, that fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted, or that seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune
from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).
The court has not conducted an initial review of Plaintiff’s Complaint, and this
matter may not proceed to service until it does so. If the court determines Plaintiff’s
Complaint may proceed to service, it will send summons forms to Plaintiff and also
extend the time in which Plaintiff has to serve Defendants with process. The court
will complete its initial review in its normal course of business.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: In light of the foregoing, the clerk’s
office is directed to term the motion event found at Filing No. 16.
DATED this 24th day of September, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
s/ John M. Gerrard
United States District Judge

*This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. The U.S. District Court for the District
of Nebraska does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they
provide on their Web sites. Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their Web sites. The
court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases
to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the court.

2