Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-00751/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-00751-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 00:0000 Cause Code Unknown

---

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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LOUIS TAMALE,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-02-0751 WBS PAN PS

vs.

CALIFORNIA STATE, et al., ORDER AND

Defendants. ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

 /

Plaintiff is a prisoner who is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. Plaintiff

seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On April 8, 2003, the court ordered the United States Marshal to serve the

complaint on defendants. On or about December 7, 2004, process directed to defendant

Alexander was returned unexecuted with a notice that defendant is deceased. The death of

defendant Alexander is hereby suggested on the record. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 25. If no motion for

substitution is made within ninety days from the date of this order, the court will recommend

dismissal of plaintiff’s claims against defendant Alexander.

On or about December 13, 2004, process directed to defendant Foster was

returned unserved because there was no Dr. Foster working at the institution to which process

was sent. Over one year has passed and plaintiff has not provided any additional information

Case 2:02-cv-00751-WBS-PAN Document 109 Filed 03/27/06 Page 1 of 3
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

2

with which to accomplish service on Dr. Foster. Accordingly, plaintiff will be ordered to show

cause in writing why defendant Foster should not be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).

On February 18, 2005 a signed waiver of service was filed on behalf of defendant

Scottie. Said defendant has not responded in any way to the amended complaint. Accordingly,

defendant Scottie will be directed to show cause in writing why his default should not be entered.

On February 25, 2005, plaintiff filed a request for entry of default against

defendant Greenough. Defendant Greenough timely answered the amended complaint on March

21, 2005. Plaintiff’s request for entry of default will be denied. 

In 2005, plaintiff filed motions to continue this action due to ongoing medical

procedures. At the time plaintiff’s motions were filed, no scheduling order had been issued in

this action. Plaintiff’s motions will therefore be denied without prejudice. The court is,

concurrently with this order, issuing a scheduling order in this matter. Good cause appearing,

unless otherwise ordered all motions will be resolved on the papers without oral argument.

Finally, on November 28, 2005, defendant Vong filed a motion to compel

discovery. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition to the motion. Good cause appearing, plaintiff

will be ordered to show cause in writing within twenty days why the motion should not be

granted.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The death of defendant Alexander is hereby suggested on the record;

2. Plaintiff’s claims against defendant Alexander will be dismissed unless, within

ninety days from the date of this order, a motion for substitution is made pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.

P. 25;

3. Within twenty days from the date of this order plaintiff shall show cause in

writing why his claims against defendant Dr. Foster should not be dismissed pursuant to Fed. R.

Civ. P. 4(m);

/////

Case 2:02-cv-00751-WBS-PAN Document 109 Filed 03/27/06 Page 2 of 3
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

3

4. Within twenty days from the date of this order defendant Scottie shall show

cause in writing why said defendant’s default should not be entered;

5. Plaintiff’s February 25, 2005 request for entry of default against defendant

Greenough is denied;

6. Plaintiff’s May 17, 2005 and June 9, 2005 motions to continue are denied

without prejudice;

7. Unless otherwise ordered, all motions filed in this action shall be briefed in

accordance with the schedule set forth in Local Rule 78-230(m) and resolved on the papers

without oral argument; and

8. Within twenty days from the date of this order plaintiff shall show cause in

writing why defendant Vong’s November 28, 2005 motion to compel should not be granted.

DATED: March 27, 2006.

12

tama0751.cuo

Case 2:02-cv-00751-WBS-PAN Document 109 Filed 03/27/06 Page 3 of 3