Hinkle v. State of Utah et al
MEMORANDUM DECISION and Order Denying Service of Process-denying 4 Motion for Service of Process. See Order for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Evelyn J. Furse on 8/22/12. (jmr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DIVISION
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER DENYING SERVICE OF
Case No. 2:11-CV-01169-DS-EJF
STATE OF UTAH, WEST VALLEY CITY,
District Judge David Sam
Magistrate Judge Evelyn J. Furse
District Judge David Sam referred this case to Magistrate Judge Evelyn J. Furse pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A).1 The Court has before it Theresa Hinkle’s (“Plaintiff”) pro se
motion for service of process. The Court has carefully reviewed the motion submitted. For the
reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion.
Allowed to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant 28 U.S.C. §1915, Ms. Hinkle filed a pro
se 42 U.S.C § 1983 action against the State of Utah and West Valley City.2 When a case is
allowed to proceed under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the officers of the court are required to” issue and
serve all process, and perform all duties” related to service of process. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d).
Section 1915(e)(2) also provides that the “court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court
determines that . . . the action or appeal is frivolous or malicious; fails to state a claim on which
relief may be granted; or seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such
relief.” While comprehensible, the Plaintiff’s complaint is far from clear. The Court denies for
now Plaintiff’s motion for service of process and offers the Plaintiff an opportunity to amend her
See Dkt. No. 6.
See Dkt. No. 3.
complaint. The Court may fully screen Plaintiff’s complaint at its earliest convenience and
determine whether to order the complaint to be served upon the Defendants.
DATED this 22nd day of August, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
EVELYN J. FURSE
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?