Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01352/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01352-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 310
Nature of Suit: Airplane Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 48:1985 Conspiracy/Deprivation 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

MELANIE C. LATRONICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

MERRILL LYNCH, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:16-cv-01352-LJO-SAB

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

SUMMONS AS MOOT

(ECF No. 20)

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this action on July 28, 2016. 

(ECF No. 1.) On December 15, 2016, Plaintiff’s first amended complaint was dismissed without 

leave to amend, Plaintiff’s motions for arrest warrants and injunctions were denied, Plaintiff’s 

motion for reconsideration of the magistrate judge’s order denying Plaintiff’s motion to recuse 

was denied, and the Clerk of the Court was directed to close this action. (ECF No. 24.) 

On January 3, 2017, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for summons. (ECF No. 26.) 

Plaintiff states that “[t]he summons must be stamped by the Clerks Office before I can address the 

main defendants or before the court can warrant arrests. The case is a criminal torture case and 

the torture is still active including the activity.” (ECF No. 26 at 1.) 

However, this action was closed on December 15, 2016. (ECF No. 24.) The first 

amended complaint was dismissed and Plaintiff’s motions for warrants and injunctions were 

denied on December 15, 2016. (ECF No. 24.) The Court notes that Plaintiff was served with a 

Case 1:16-cv-01352-LJO-SAB Document 27 Filed 01/11/17 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

copy of the order adopting findings and a copy of the judgment on December 15, 2016, but they 

were returned to the Court as undeliverable on January 9, 2017. As this action is closed, 

Plaintiff’s motion for summons is denied as moot. No further motions for a summons in this 

action shall be considered by the Court. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for summons is 

DENIED as moot. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 11, 2017 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-01352-LJO-SAB Document 27 Filed 01/11/17 Page 2 of 2