Davis v. Ally Bank
ORDER denying 4 Motion Requesting a Telephonic Hearing; denying 5 Motion for Service of Process. See Order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Samuel Alba on 3/29/2011. (jtj)
-SA Davis v. Ally Bank
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION
JAMES DAVIS, Plaintiff, Case No. 2:11-CV-42-CW-SA
ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR TELEPHONIC HEARING AND SERVICE OF PROCESS
Before the court is Plaintiff James Davis' motions requesting a telephonic hearing (Doc. 4) and service of process (Doc. 5). Mr. Davis is a pro se plaintiff whose motion to
proceed in forma pauperis was granted on January 18, 2011, the same day his complaint was filed. (Docs. 1-3.) Because Mr.
Davis is proceeding pro se, the court liberally construes his pleadings. See Ledbetter v. City of Topeka, Kansas, 318 F.3d
1183, 1187 (10th Cir. 2003). The court first addresses Mr. Davis' motion for a telephonic hearing. (Doc. 4.) In his motion, Mr. Davis explains that he is
"located outside of the defendant's business location of Midvale, Utah" and he is "requesting to attend the hearing telephonically as I cannot afford to attend in person and I do not have video
conferencing equipment or abilities."
No hearing has been
scheduled in this case, so the court does not know to which hearing Mr. Davis is referring in this motion. Because no
hearing has been set, the court denies the motion for telephonic hearing. If, in the future, a hearing is scheduled in this case,
that would be the appropriate time for Mr. Davis to file such a motion. The court next addresses Mr. Davis' motion for service of process. denies it. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: (1) Mr. Davis' motion requesting a telephonic hearing (Doc. 4) is DENIED, and (2) Mr. Davis' motion requesting service of process (Doc. 5) is DENIED. DATED this 29th day of March, 2011. BY THE COURT: (Doc. 5.) After considering the motion, the court
_ SAMUEL ALBA United States Magistrate Judge
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?