Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00699/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00699-7/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. 18.) 

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

fr 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. 

Plaintiff alleges that his case has been given no attention since its filing. 

As a preliminary matter, Plaintiff is mistaken in his contention that his case has been

Case 1:05-cv-00699-RC Document 19 Filed 07/13/06 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

given no attention. As noted above, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining order

which this Court recommended be denied as premature. Prior to the District Court’s resolution

of the case, Plaintiff requested several extensions of time to file Objections to the

Recommendation. No objections were ever filed by Plaintiff. The District Court adopted the

Findings and Recommendations on May 31, 2006. 

With regard to service of his Complaint, Plaintiff was informed previously that this Court

must conduct a screening of the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and determine that

the Complaint states a cognizable claim for relief before service will be ordered. To the extent

Plaintiff is urging the Court to screen his case sooner, Plaintiff is informed that this Court has

pending before it hundreds of cases similar to Plaintiff’s many of which were filed prior to

Plaintiff’s and are as deserving of attention. Plaintiff’s filing of a Motion does not assist the

Court to move any more speedily with his case but instead serves only to divert the Court’s

attention from the screening process to miscellaneous motions such as the instant Motion. The

repeated filing of Motions which have been previously addressed by the Court serves only to

waste judicial resources. Again, Plaintiff is urged to be patient. The Court processes all of its

cases in as timely a fashion as possible. So long as Plaintiff keeps the Court apprised of his

current address he can rest assured that he will receive any orders issued by the Court in his case. 

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 13, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00699-RC Document 19 Filed 07/13/06 Page 2 of 2