Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01916/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01916-2/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALEJANDRO GONZALEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

NELLY KANDKHOROVA, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:14-cv-01916-SKO (PC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION 

(Doc. 10)

Plaintiff Alejandro Gonzalez, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, 

filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on December 3, 2014. On September 28, 

2015, Plaintiff filed a notice regarding his due diligence in attempting to have the United States 

Marshals Office serve his complaint on Defendants Kandkhorova and Cryer, and he requests an 

order directing service. 

As Plaintiff was informed in a separate order issued concurrently with this order, the 

Marshals Office will initiate service on Plaintiff’s behalf only upon court order, and the Court will 

order it to do so only after his complaint is screened and found to state cognizable claims for 

relief. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(d), 1915A; Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3); Doc. 2, 1st Info. Order, § III(B). In 

this case, Plaintiff has been ordered to file either an amended complaint or a notice of his 

willingness to proceed only on his cognizable claim against Defendant Kandkhorova. If Plaintiff 

amends, his amended complaint will be screened in due course, and if he elects to proceed only 

Case 1:14-cv-01916-DAD-DLB Document 13 Filed 10/14/15 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

against Defendant Kandkhorova, the Court will automatically direct the Marshal to initiate service 

of process. It is unnecessary for Plaintiff to request service. 

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion is HEREBY DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 13, 2015 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01916-DAD-DLB Document 13 Filed 10/14/15 Page 2 of 2