Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00812/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00812-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PATRICK L. SIMMONS, SR. )

 )

Plaintiff, )

)

)

v. )

)

ROBERT SYDNEY JULIAN, M.D., et)

al., )

Defendants. )

)

 )

1: 05-CV-00812-OWW-SMS

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO USE

THE CORRECT CASE NUMBER IN

DOCUMENTS FILED WITH THE COURT

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR AN ORDER DIRECTING SERVICE

(DOC. 11)

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an

action for damages concerning alleged medical malpractice and

related tortious conduct. The matter has been referred to the

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rules

72-302 and 72-304.

I. Use of the Correct Case Number

Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, filed on July 22, 2005,

bore an incorrect case number. Use of the correct case number is

necessary in order for the document to be filed in the correct

action and to be forwarded to the correct department of the Court

for consideration.

Plaintiff IS DIRECTED to use on all documents filed in this

Case 1:05-cv-00812-OWW -SMS Document 16 Filed 08/16/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

action the correct case number, namely, 1:05-CV-00812 OWW SMS.

II. Motion for an Order Directing the Marshal to Serve

On July 22, 2005, Plaintiff filed a motion for an order

directing the Marshal to serve the summons and complaint in this

action. Because Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the

Court is required to screen his complaint before directing that

it be served. By separate order, the undersigned Magistrate Judge

has found that Plaintiff’s first amended complaint fails to state

a claim upon which relief may be granted and has recommended to

the District Judge that the Court dismiss the action. Thus,

service of the first amended complaint would be inappropriate. 

Thus, Plaintiff’s motion for an order directing service IS

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 15, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00812-OWW -SMS Document 16 Filed 08/16/05 Page 2 of 2