Patrick et al v. Social Security Administration

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM DECISION denying without prejudice 5 Motion for Arraignment Proceedings; denying without prejudice 6 Motion for Grand Jury; denying without prejud9ice 7 Motion for Order to Show Cause. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dustin B. Pead on 01/28/2015. (tls)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
CENTRAL DIVISION

ROCIA PATRICK, and MICHAEL R.
PATRICK, SR., as representative for
minor children,
Plaintiffs,

MEMORANDUM DECISION
& ORDER
Case No. 2:14-cv-00937
United States District Court Judge Dee
Benson

v.
SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION,

Magistrate Judge Dustin Pead

Defendants.

This matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Dustin Pead by District Judge Dee Benson
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (doc. 4).
On January 1, 2015, Magistrate Judge Brook C. Wells granted Plaintiff Rocia Patrick and
Michael R. Patrick Sr.’s (collectively “Plaintiffs”) request to proceed in forma pauperis (doc. 2).
On that same day, Plaintiffs filed a copy of their Complaint with the court (doc. 3). Thereafter,
on January 12, 2015, Plaintiffs filed their pending “Motion For Arraignment Proceedings” (doc.
5), “Motion For Grand Jury Investigation” (doc. 6) and a “Motion To Show Cause” (doc. 7).
After filing a Complaint, a party has one hundred and twenty days (120) within which to
effect service of process on the Defendant. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) (if defendant is not served
within 120 days after the complaint is filed, the court “must dismiss the action without prejudice
against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time”). Here, while the
time within which to do so has not yet expired, Plaintiffs have not served Defendant with a copy
of the complaint or requested that the Court issue an order requiring the United States Marshal to

do so pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. As a result, it is inappropriate, at this juncture, for Plaintiffs
to file motions related to a Complaint that Defendants are not aware of and to which they have
had no opportunity to respond.
Accordingly, the Court rules as follows
1. Plaintiffs’ “Motion For Arraignment Proceedings”(doc. 5), “Motion For Grand Jury
Investigation”(doc. 6) and “Motion To Show Cause” (doc. 7) are hereby denied
without prejudice.
2. Plaintiffs may renew their motions, if appropriate, after service of the complaint upon
Defendant.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 28th day of January, 2015.

____________________________________
Dustin Pead
U.S. Federal Magistrate Judge