Khankhodjaeva v. Saxon N.A. et al

Filing 29

ORDER that the clerk of court shall issue summons to the remaining defendants in this case and deliver the summons to the U.S. Marshal for service. Plaintiff shall have twenty (20) days to furnish to the U.S. Marshal the required USM-285 forms. Afte r plaintiff receives copies of the completed USM-285 forms from the U.S. Marshal, she has twenty (20) days to file a notice with the court identifying which defendants were served and which were not served, if any. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 2/23/12. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - EDS)

1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
7
8

DILARAM A. KHANKHODJAEVA,

9

2:10-CV-1577 JCM (GWF)

Plaintiff,

10
11
12
13

v.
SAXON MORTGAGE SERVICES, et
al.,
Defendants.

14
15

ORDER

16

Presently before the court is pro se plaintiff Dilaram A. Khankhodjaeva’s opposition to the

17

notice of intent to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) issued by the clerk’s

18

office. (Doc. #28).

19

Plaintiff filed this case on September 15, 2010. (Doc. #1). United States Magistrate Judge

20

Foley granted plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application (doc. #4) and issued a screening order (doc.

21

#5). The screening order stated: (1) plaintiff was required to file an amended complaint by June 24,

22

2011, and (2) the clerk of court should issue summons to the defendants named in the complaint and

23

deliver the summons to the U.S. Marshal for service. (Doc. #5). Plaintiff filed an amended

24

complaint on June 24, 2011, which attempted to cure the deficiencies identified in the screening

25

order. (Doc. #9). The amended complaint also added new parties. (Doc. #9).

26

The parties added in the amended complaint were never served. Additionally, the summons

27

for defendant Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc., one of the defendants in the original

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

complaint, was returned unexecuted by the U.S. Marshal. (Doc. #10). Plaintiff provided a P.O. box

2

address, and personal service cannot be effected on a P.O. box. (Doc. #10). Plaintiff never moved

3

for an order requiring the clerk of court to issue summons for the defendants added in the amended

4

complaint and for the U.S. Marshal to serve the new defendants.

5

Plaintiff now opposes the Rule 4(m) notice, asserting that the U.S. Marshal should have

6

served the remaining defendants in this case. (Doc. #28). Pursuant to Magistrate Judge Foley’s

7

screening order, “if the plaintiff wishes to have the U.S. Marshal attempt service again on any

8

unserved defendant, then a motion must be filed with the court identifying the unserved defendant,

9

specifying a more detailed name and address, and indicating whether some other manner of service

10

should be used.” (Doc. #5). The court interprets plaintiff’s pro se opposition to the Rule 4(m) notice

11

as such a motion.

12

Accordingly,

13

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the clerk of court shall

14

issue summons to the remaining defendants in this case and deliver the summons to the U.S. Marshal

15

for service. Plaintiff shall have twenty (20) days to furnish to the U.S. Marshal the required USM-

16

285 forms. After plaintiff receives copies of the completed USM-285 forms from the U.S. Marshal,

17

she has twenty (20) days to file a notice with the court identifying which defendants were served and

18

which were not served, if any.

19

DATED February 23, 2012.

20
21
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-