Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01053/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01053-6/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

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

CLEOFAS GONZALEZ,

Plaintiff,

vs.

DR. BOPARI, et al., 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:12cv01053 LJO DLB PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR RETURN OF SERVICE 

DOCUMENTS

(Document 29)

Plaintiff Cleofas Gonzalez (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on 

June 28, 2012.

On April 23, 2014, the Court screened Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint and found 

that it stated a claim against Defendants Bopari and Grimm. On May 9, 2014, after Plaintiff 

completed and returned service documents, the Court ordered the United States Marshal to 

initiate service of process.

On August 20, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for return of service documents from the 

United States Marshal. Plaintiff believes that an inordinate amount of time has elapsed without 

return of service.

Case 1:12-cv-01053-LJO-DLB Document 30 Filed 08/25/14 Page 1 of 2
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

Plaintiff is informed, however, that the Court will not issue further orders to the United 

States Marshal to expedite service. Service is dependent upon locating a defendant, which in 

some instances, can take quite some time. Moreover, the Marshal, like this Court, is tasked with 

handling a large number of pro se cases where the plaintiff is proceeding pro se. 

Until such time as the United States Marshal returns service and informs the Court 

whether service was successful, the Court will not issue any further orders. The Court also notes 

that a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis, and for whom service is performed by officers of 

the court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), has no ability to dictate how that service shall lawfully 

be accomplished.

The Court will keep Plaintiff informed and will notify him if service issues arise. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 25, 2014 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01053-LJO-DLB Document 30 Filed 08/25/14 Page 2 of 2