Zivkovic v. Hood et al
MEMORANDUM DECISION denying 5 Motion for Service of Process. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner on 2/1/17 (alt)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
KIMBERLY HOOD AND ROBERT
Case No. 2:17-cv-00067-DN-PMW
District Judge David Nuffer
Chief Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner
Chief District Judge David Nuffer referred this case to Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). 1 The court permitted Plaintiff David Zivkovic
(“Plaintiff”) to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 2 Before the court is
Plaintiff’s motion for service of process on Defendants Kimberly Hood and Robert Johnson. 3
When a case is proceeding under the IFP statute, 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).
At the same time, the IFP statute requires the court to screen the complaint in such a case to
determine whether it should be served upon the named defendants or dismissed. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B). In this case, the court has not yet completed that screening process and,
consequently, has not yet made a determination about whether Plaintiff’s complaint should
indeed be served on the named defendants. For that reason, Plaintiff’s motion for service of
process is unnecessary and is DENIED at this time. As indicated above, the court will screen
Dkt. No. 4.
Dkt. No. 2.
Dkt. No. 5.
Plaintiff’s complaint and determine whether it should be served on the named defendants. It is
unnecessary for Plaintiff to take any action to trigger that process.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 1st Day of February 2017.
BY THE COURT:
PAUL M. WARNER
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?