Belssner v. Guild Mortgage et al

Filing 11

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED: Plaintiff Charles N. Belssner's 8 2nd Motion for Status Check, 9 2nd Motion/Request for Summons, 10 2nd Motion/Request for Service are DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 1/30/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR) Modified on 1/31/2019 to correct date order was signed (DKJ).

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

CHARLES N. BELSSNER,

8
9
10
11

Case No. 2:17-cv-01650-KJD-PAL
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER

GUILD MORTGAGE, et al.,

(Mot. Status Check – ECF No. 8;
Mot. Summons – ECF No. 9;
Mot. Service – ECF No. 10)

Defendants.

12

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff Charles N. Belssner’s 2nd Motion for Status

13

Check (ECF No. 8), 2nd Motion/Request for Summons (ECF No. 9), 2nd Motion/Request for

14

Service (ECF No. 10). These Motions are referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

15

§ 636(b)(1)(A) and LR IB 1-3 of the Local Rules of Practice.

16

Mr. Belssner is proceeding in this action pro se. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and LSR 1-

17

1, any person who is unable to pay the $400 filing fee may apply to the court for authority to

18

proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). Federal courts are required to screen all IFP complaints before

19

allowing a case to move forward, issuing summons, and requiring an answer or responsive

20

pleading. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000). Unless and until the court

21

determines a complaint states a plausible claim for relief, the court will not direct the Clerk of

22

Court to issue summonses to the defendant(s). If the complaint states an actionable claim and

23

summons(es) are issued, then the summons(es) and complaint must be served within 90 days of

24

the court’s screening order authorizing service of process. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). Once the

25

court allows service, an IFP plaintiff may request an order directing the U.S. Marshal to serve

26

defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3). However, if a complaint fails to state a plausible claim,

27

the court will dismiss the complaint and the plaintiff is ordinarily given leave to amend with

28

guidance on how to cure the deficiencies, unless it is clear from the face of the complaint that the
1

1

deficiencies cannot be cured by amendment. Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir.

2

1995).

3

In June and November 2017, Mr. Belssner filed motions requesting a status check and

4

service of process by the U.S. Marshal. ECF Nos. 3, 4. The court denied the motions, explaining

5

that the court had yet to determine whether his complaint stated an actionable claim. Order (ECF

6

No. 5). “Summons will not issue, and the court will not order the USM to serve defendants, unless

7

and until the court determines that Belssner’s proposed complaint states a claim.” Id. at 2

8

(emphasis added). Mr. Belssner was informed of the large number of criminal and civil actions

9

pending before the court and he would be notified if required to submit additional documents. Id.

10

On January 25, 2019, the court entered a Screening Order (ECF No. 6) granting Belssner’s

11

Application for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 1) and screening his proposed

12

complaint. The court found that Mr. Belssner failed to state a plausible claim against any defendant

13

and instructed him to file an amended complaint by February 22, 2019, if he believes he can correct

14

the defects in his pleading.

15

On January 28, 2019, Mr. Belssner filed duplicative requests for status check, summons,

16

and service. ECF Nos. 8, 9, 10.1 It appears unlikely that he received the court’s screening order

17

in the mail prior to filing his requests. As previously explained, the court will not order summonses

18

be issued or service of process on any defendant(s) until the court determines that a complaint

19

states a colorable claim. The court recently dismissed Belssner’s proposed complaint and he has

20

until February 22, 2019, to file an amended complaint. If he does so, the court will screen the

21
22
1

23
24
25
26
27
28

Mr. Belssner’s current motions contain duplicate requests for relief as those denied last year. See Order
(ECF No. 5). The court cautions Belssner that filing multiple motions requesting the same relief is an
abusive litigation tactic that taxes the resources of the court. Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
provides that sanctions may be imposed on an unrepresented party who signs a paper that is either filed
with the court for an improper purpose or is frivolous. See Nugget Hydroelectric, L.P. v. Pacific Gas &
Elec. Co., 981 F.2d 429, 439 (9th Cir. 1992) (upholding Rule 11 sanctions because a party’s second motion
to compel largely duplicated the first) (citing Townsend v. Holman Consulting Corp., 929 F.3d 1358, 1362
(9th Cir. 1990) (en banc)). Filing duplicate motions increases the court’s workload and generally delays
decisions for all pending cases. Mr. Belssner is warned that continued motion practice requesting relief that
has already been denied or making frivolous, unsupported requests may result in the imposition of
sanctions, including dismissal of this case.

2

1

amended complaint. No summonses will be issued unless and until the court determines that Mr.

2

Belssner’s amended complaint states a plausible claim against one or more defendants.

3

Accordingly,

4

IT IS ORDERED: Plaintiff Charles N. Belssner’s 2nd Motion for Status Check (ECF

5

No. 8), 2nd Motion/Request for Summons (ECF No. 9), 2nd Motion/Request for Service (ECF

6

No. 10) are DENIED.

7

Dated this 30th day of January, 2019.

8
9
PEGGY A. LEEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3