Ensley v. Humboldt General Hospital et al

Filing 7

MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS of the Honorable Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb, on 12/23/2015, denying the component of Plaintiff's 5 Motion which seeks the Court to Order the USM to serve his summons and complaint. Re the status of 2 "Emergency Plea," when Plaintiff serves his summons and complaint on the defendants, he should also serve them with a copy of it so that they can respond. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA

HORTON HOWARD ENSLEY, JR.,

)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
HUMBOLDT GENERAL HOSPITAL, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
________________________________________)

3:15-cv-00585-RCJ-WGC
MINUTES OF THE COURT
December 23, 2015

PRESENT: THE HONORABLE WILLIAM G. COBB, U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DEPUTY CLERK:

KATIE LYNN OGDEN REPORTER: NONE APPEARING

COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF(S): NONE APPEARING
COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT(S): NONE APPEARING
MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS:
Before the court is Plaintiff’s document entitled, “Appeal + Motion” (ECF No. 5). Plaintiff’s
“motion” was filed after Plaintiff’s receipt of this court’s order (ECF No. 4) which directed Plaintiff
to pay the balance of his filing fee, which Plaintiff has now paid. (ECF No. 6.) This court’s order
also directed Plaintiff to submit proposed Summonses for the Defendants, which the court would
issue and return to Plaintiff for service upon the defendants. (ECF No. 4.)
Plaintiff’s motion inquires of the court why the court did not issue the summons and have
them delivered to the defendants by the U.S. Marshal as he claims is required under the Seaman’s
Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1916. However, other than the vague incorporation of “Bivins Action § 28 U.S.C.
1916 Seamans Act” in the title of Plaintiff’s civil rights complaint, the complaint does not appear
to pertain to an action which “seaman may institute and prosecute in their own name and for their
own benefit for wages or salvage or the enforcement of laws enacted for their health or safety
without prepaying fees or costs or furnishing security therefor.” 28 U.S.C. § 1996.
Therefore, Plaintiff is not entitled to have the government bear the costs of service of his civil
rights complaint. The component of Plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 5) which seeks the court to order
the U.S. Marshal to serve his summons and complaint is DENIED.
///

MINUTES OF THE COURT
3:15-cv-00585-RCJ-WGC
Date: December 23, 2015
Page 2
Plaintiff’s motion also inquired into the status of his “Emergency Plea.” (ECF No. 2.) The
court has reviewed Plaintiff’s motion and it appears to be a motion for a temporary restraining order
regarding the possible destruction of the Winnemucca Hotel. When Plaintiff serves his summons
and complaint on the defendants, he should include service of ECF No. 2 with his documents for
service so that the defendants can respond.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
LANCE S. WILSON, CLERK

By:

/s/
Deputy Clerk