Matlean v. Dzurenda et al

Filing 23

ORDER re: 18 Notice, which the Court construes as a Motion Requesting Service. The clerk of court must send to Matlean four blank summons forms and four blank USM-285 forms, along with a copy of this order. Matlean must complete the forms to the e xtent he is able to and file them with the court by January 31, 2019. Upon receipt of the proposed summonses and USM-285 forms from Matlean, the clerk of court must complete the forms with Jo Gentry, Dr. Koehn, and Dr. Vicuna's last-known addres ses that were filed under seal at ECF No. 16; issue the summonses for Jo Gentry, Dr. Koehn, Dr. Vicuna, and SL Clark; and deliver the summonses, USM-285 forms, a copy of the complaint (ECF No. 7 ), and a copy of this order to the U.S. Marshal for se rvice. FURTHER ORDERED that Matlean's deadline to serve defendants Jo Gentry, Dr. Koehn, Dr. Vicuna, and SL Clark is extended to April 10, 2019. FURTHER ORDERED that the court's Notice of Intent to Dismiss Pursuant to FRCP 4(m) (ECF No. 22 ) is VACATED in light of this order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 1/10/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 *** 6 JAMES KW MATLEAN, 7 Plaintiff, ORDER 8 9 Case No. 2:17-cv-01461-KJD-CWH v. JAMES DZURENDA, et al., 10 Defendants. 11 Presently before the court is pro se plaintiff James Matlean’s notice (ECF No. 18), which 12 13 the court construes as a motion requesting service on defendants Jo Gentry, Dr. Koehn, Dr. 14 Vicuna, and SL Clark. The Nevada Attorney General’s Office accepted service of process for some, but not all, 15 16 of the defendants in this case. (Notice of Acceptance of Service (ECF No. 15).) It did not accept 17 service for Jo Gentry, Dr. Koehn, or Dr. Vicuna, but it filed their last-known addresses under seal. 18 (Notice (ECF No. 16).) It did not accept service for defendant SL Clark because that person was 19 unknown. (ECF No. 15 at 1.) Matlean now moves for service on Jo Gentry, Dr. Koehn, and Dr. 20 Vicuna. Matlean also moves for service on SL Clark. Matlean identifies her as Sonya Clark and 21 provides her address. 22 Given that Matlean is proceeding in forma pauperis, the court will order the United States 23 Marshal to assist Matlean with service on Jo Gentry, Dr. Koehn, Dr. Vicuna, and SL Clark under 24 Rule 4(c)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The court further will order the clerk of 25 court to mail to Matlean the paperwork required for the U.S. Marshal to assist with service. 26 Finally, good cause appearing under Rule 4(m), the court will extend time for service on Jo 27 Gentry, Dr. Koehn, Dr. Vicuna, and SL Clark for an additional 90 days from the date of this 28 order. 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk of court must send to Matlean four blank 3 4 5 6 summons forms and four blank USM-285 forms, along with a copy of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Matlean must complete the forms to the extent he is able to and file them with the court by January 31, 2019. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that upon receipt of the proposed summonses and USM-285 7 forms from Matlean, the clerk of court must complete the forms with Jo Gentry, Dr. Koehn, and 8 Dr. Vicuna’s last-known addresses that were filed under seal at ECF No. 16; issue the summonses 9 for Jo Gentry, Dr. Koehn, Dr. Vicuna, and SL Clark; and deliver the summonses, USM-285 10 forms, a copy of the complaint (ECF No. 7), and a copy of this order to the U.S. Marshal for 11 service. 12 13 14 15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Matlean’s deadline to serve defendants Jo Gentry, Dr. Koehn, Dr. Vicuna, and SL Clark is extended to April 10, 2019. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the court’s Notice of Intent to Dismiss Pursuant to FRCP 4(m) (ECF No. 22) is VACATED in light of this order. 16 17 DATED: January 10, 2019 18 19 20 21 C.W. HOFFMAN, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Page 2 of 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?