Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00001/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00001-11/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

STEVEN HAIRL WILHELM,

Plaintiff,

v.

DR. A. ROTMAN, et al., 

Defendants.

1:10cv0001 DLB PC

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR SUMMONS 

(Document 52)

Plaintiff Steven Wilhelm (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action filed on December 31, 2009. On July 12, 2012, the Court issued an order finding 

service of the First Amended Complaint appropriate as to Defendant Dr. A. Rotman. 

Since that time, the United States Marshal has encountered considerable difficulty in serving 

Defendant Rotman. However, on September 22, 2014, the United States Marshal returned service 

executed. Defendant Rotman was served by personal service on September 16, 2014. Defendant 

Rotman’s October 7, 2014, motion to dismiss is pending. 

On September 29, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting that the Court send him service 

documents to serve Defendant Rotman. Plaintiff states that he now has a process server. 

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 1:10-cv-00001-DLB Document 55 Filed 10/10/14 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

It appears that at the time Plaintiff signed the motion, he had not yet received notice that 

Defendant Rotman was successfully served. Accordingly, there is no need for Plaintiff to utilize a 

process server and his motion is therefore DENIED AT MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 10, 2014 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-00001-DLB Document 55 Filed 10/10/14 Page 2 of 2