Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01577/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01577-17/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Leon H. Pogue,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Dr. Igbanosa, et al.,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. 1:07cv-01577-GMS

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Notice to Defendants that Defendant Herman

has been Located and Service of a Summons, Complaint and Subpoena has been Filed with

the U.S. Marshal’s Office in Fresno California (Doc. 71). This Notice apparently is an

attempt to renew Plaintiff’s Notice to Request of the Marshal to Serve Defendant Ehrman

(Doc. 65). With all due respect to Plaintiff, the Court has already dealt with his request to

serve Defendant Ehrman with the Complaint at this late date.

In its Order filed on August 31, 2010 (Doc. 52), this Court noted that because

Plaintiff had demonstrated no diligence at all in trying to locate and have Defendant

Ehrman be served it would not authorize service upon Defendant Ehrman after the

Complaint had abated as to him and after discovery had closed, discovery motion deadlines

had passed and the pretrial conference had been held. No facts have changed since that

time. Therefore, to the extent that Plaintiff requests the Court’s authorization to order the

Marshal’s to serve previously named Defendant Ehrman, that request is denied. The Court

Case 1:07-cv-01577-GMS Document 73 Filed 01/03/11 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 -

again notes as it did in its previous Order that the Complaint long ago abated as to

Defendant Ehrman.

In Plaintiff’s Notice (Doc. 71), he further requests a telephone conference be

scheduled with the Court to determine whether the extension requested by Defendants

which Plaintiff does not oppose will be granted. The Court has already denied that

extension. See Order dated December 21, 2010 (Doc. 70).

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED denying Plaintiff’s Request to extend trial date and

reaffirming trial is set for January 19, 2011.

DATED this 3rd day of January, 2011.

Case 1:07-cv-01577-GMS Document 73 Filed 01/03/11 Page 2 of 2