Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00699/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00699-8/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JASON SAUNDERS,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAUNDERS, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 05 699 AWI LJO PC

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR ORDER OF

SERVICE OF COMPLAINT (Doc. 20.) 

Jason Saunders (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Plaintiff filed the instant action on June 1, 2005. On September 8, 2005, Plaintiff

submitted a Motion for Order of Service of Complaint on Defendants. An Amended Complaint

was then filed on September 12, 2005. Plaintiff’s Motion for Order of Service was denied by the

Court on September 29, 2005, and informed Plaintiff that the Court had yet to screen his case to

determine whether it stated a cognizable claim for relief. In the interim, Plaintiff filed a Motion

for Temporary Restraining Order which was denied by the Court on May 31, 2006. 

On June 13, 2006, Plaintiff filed a second Motion for Order of Service of the Complaint. 

The Court denied this case as well, again, informing Plaintiff that his was not the only case

before the Court and that his case would be reviewed in turn. 

Case 1:05-cv-00699-RC Document 22 Filed 09/18/06 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

On September 14, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Third Motion for Order of Service of the

Complaint. The Court will again deny this Motion. As noted above, Plaintiff has been informed

repeatedly that his is not the only case before the Court and that the Court has literally, hundreds

of similar cases filed prior to Plaintiffs and also awaiting review by the Court. Plaintiff’s

repeated filing of the same Motions borders on an abuse of the process which may result in the

assessment of sanctions. Again, Plaintiff’s repeated filing of Motions does not move his case

along any faster. Instead it diverts the Court’s attention from screening those hundreds of cases

to resolving the unnecessary and abusive motion and serves only to further delay the resolution of

his case. 

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1 The THIRD Motion for Order of Service of the Complaint is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 18, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00699-RC Document 22 Filed 09/18/06 Page 2 of 2