Brown v. Kaplan College

Filing 9

ORDER denying Plaintiff's 4 Motion for Assistance. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 7/9/10. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ECS)

Brown v. Kaplan College

Doc. 9

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 This matter is before the court on Plaintiff Kirsha Brown's Motion for Request For Assistance with Service of Summons, Motions/Legal Pleadings Etc (Dkt. #4) filed June 25, 2010. The court has considered the Motion. Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se, was granted authority pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in forma pauperis, and submitted a Complaint (Dkt. #1) on June 15, 2010. On June 30, 2010, the court entered an Order (Dkt. #5) screening Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), finding she had not stated a claim upon which relief could be granted, and allowing her to file an Amended Complaint. See Order, Dkt. #5. The Motion (Dkt. #4) requests assistance because of the "immense amount of filed cases, in which [sic] requires the constant filing of legal documents." She states that she wants to ensure parties are served correctly. Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, her Complaint had to be screened before the court directed service. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). If Plaintiff were to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, the court would direct the Clerk of Court to prepare summons, and service of the Complaint on Defendant pursuant to Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure would be effected by the United States Marshal's Service because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma /// KIRSHA BROWN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) KAPLAN COLLEGE, ) ) Defendant. ) __________________________________________) Case No. 2:10-cv-00913-PMP-PAL ORDER (Mtn for Assistance- Dkt. #4)

Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

pauperis. Id. The court screened Plaintiff's Complaint and found that it should be dismissed with leave to amend. Service of the Complaint is, therefore, premature at this point. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Assistance (Dkt. #3) is DENIED. Dated this 9th day of July, 2010.

_________________________________________ PEGGY A. LEEN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2