Belssner v. Guild Mortgage et al

Filing 5

ORDER Denying 3 Motion for U.S. Marshal to Execute Service and 4 Motion for Status Check. See Order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 3/28/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

CHARLES N. BELSSNER,

8
9
10

v.

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

GUILD MORTGAGE, et al.,

(Mot. USM Serve – ECF No. 3;
Mot. Status Check – ECF No. 4)

Defendants.

11
12

This matter is before the court on Plaintiff Charles N. Belssner’s Motion for U.S. Marshal

13

to Execute Service (ECF No. 3) and Motion for Status Check (ECF No. 4). These Motions are

14

referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and LR IB 1-3 of the Local Rules

15

of Practice.

16

Mr. Belssner is proceeding in this civil rights action pro se, which means he is not

17

represented by an attorney. See LSR 2-1. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and LSR 1-1, any person

18

who is unable to prepay the fees in a civil case may apply to the court for authority to proceed in

19

forma pauperis (“IFP”), meaning without prepaying the full $400 filing fee. Federal courts must

20

screen any IFP complaint before allowing the case to move forward, issue summons, and require

21

an answer or responsive pleading. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc).

22

If the court determines the complaint states a plausible claim for relief, the court will direct the

23

Clerk of the Court to issue summons to the defendant(s) and the summons and complaint must be

24

served within 90 days. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). A plaintiff granted IFP status may request a court

25

order directing the U.S. Marshal to serve defendants. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3). However, if the

26

court determines the complaint fails to state a claim, the complaint is dismissed without prejudice

27

and the plaintiff is ordinarily given leave to amend with guidance on how to cure the deficiencies

28

unless it is clear from the face of the complaint that the deficiencies cannot be cured by amendment.
1

1

Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995).

2

Here, Mr. Belssner has requested authority to proceed IFP. See IFP Application (ECF

3

No. 1). The court will address the IFP Application and screen his proposed complaint in the

4

ordinary course, that is, as soon as the court can do so. Cases are ordinarily addressed and screened

5

in the order in which they are filed.

6

Belssner’s Motion for U.S. Marshal (“USM”) to Execute Service (ECF No. 3) asks the

7

court for an order directing the USM to serve defendants in this case. The screening order will

8

determine whether Belssner has stated a claim on which relief may be granted against one or more

9

of the defendants he seeks to sue. Summons will not issue, and the court will not order the USM

10

to serve defendants, unless and until the court determines that Belssner’s proposed complaint states

11

a claim. Belssner’s motion is therefore denied.

12

Mr. Belssner has also filed a Motion for Status Check (ECF No. 4). Due to the large

13

number of criminal and civil actions pending before the court, the Clerk of the Court is unable to

14

respond in writing to individual inquiries regarding the status of cases. The court will notify you

15

when any action is taken in your case. As long as you keep the court apprised of your current

16

address, you will receive all court filings and decisions that might affect the status of your case.

17

Additionally, if you have not submitted a document required in your case, the court will notify

18

you.

19

IT IS ORDERED:

20

1. Plaintiff Charles N. Belssner’s Motion for U.S. Marshal to Execute Service (ECF

21

No. 3) is DENIED. The court will address the IFP Application (ECF No. 1) and screen

22

the proposed complaint in the ordinary course. If the court determines it states a claim

23

on which relief may be granted the court will order service of summons and complaint.

24

2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Status Check (ECF No. 4) is DENIED.

25

Dated this 28th day of March, 2018.

26
27
PEGGY A. LEEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

28
2