Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01794/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01794-8/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAUL BARRIOS PEREZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

DILL, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:07-cv-01794-LJO-SMS PC

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS

(Docs. 23 and 24)

Plaintiff Saul Barrios Perez, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on December 6, 2007. This action is proceeding

on Plaintiff’s amended complaint, filed July 22, 2008, against Defendants Dill, Harden, Sobbe,

Sandoval, Tyson, Chan, Vieth, and Brown for violation of the Eighth Amendment arising from the

conditions of confinement on contraband watch at Kern Valley State Prison in 2006. 

The United States Marshal was ordered to initiate service of process on March 19, 2009. 

Plaintiff’s premature motions for entry of default and default judgment were denied in orders filed

May 21, 2009, and May 27, 2009. Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s motion for seeking

further guidance or explanation regarding the status of service of process, filed June 8, 2009, and

Plaintiff’s motion that the Marshal serve the summonses and amended complaint, filed June 16,

2009. For the following reasons, Plaintiff’s motions are denied as seeking relief not appropriately

awarded and as moot. 

The Court directs service of process and oversees that it is completed. Once the Marshal has

been directed to initiate service, Plaintiff must await the completion of those proceedings. If further

1

Case 1:07-cv-01794-BAM Document 40 Filed 01/27/10 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

information or orders are needed to ensure that service is either completed or found to be impossible

to execute based on the information provided by Plaintiff, the Court will ensure that the requisite

information is sought or orders issued. 

In this instance, Defendants Harden, Sobbe, Sandoval, and Tyson waived service and filed

their answer on September 8, 2009, while the Marshal was unable to locate and serve Defendants

Dill, Chan, Vieth, and Brown, and service was returned un-executed. The issue of service on

Defendants Dill, Chan, Vieth, and Brown is addressed by the Court in a separate order issued

concurrently with this order.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motions are HEREBY DENIED as requesting inappropriate relief

and as moot in light of the subsequent filings revealing the status of service on Defendants. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 27, 2010 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:07-cv-01794-BAM Document 40 Filed 01/27/10 Page 2 of 2