Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01746/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-01746-11/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

MICHAEL MCNEIL,

Plaintiff,

v.

LVN HAYES, et al.,

Defendants.

_____________________________________/

Case No. 1:10-cv-01746-AWI-SKO PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR ORDER DIRECTING SERVICE AND 

DISREGARDING REQUEST FOR 

JUDICIAL NOTICE

(Docs. 72 and 73)

Plaintiff Michael McNeil, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed 

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on September 23, 2010. This action is 

proceeding on Plaintiff’s second amended complaint against Defendants Hayes, Raman, Soto, 

Byers, Doe, and Rotman on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment medical care claims.

On June 17, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion seeking the issuance of an order directing the 

United States Marshal to again initiate service of process on Defendants Hayes and Rotman. In 

light of the fact that the Marshal was directed to re-serve Defendant Hayes on February 13, 2013, 

and to re-serve Defendant Rotman on June 11, 2013, Plaintiff’s motion is moot and it shall be 

denied on that ground. If further information is needed from Plaintiff, the Court will issue an 

order. Otherwise, the Court will direct and monitor service as is appropriate.1

 

1 Due to resource constraints currently faced by the federal government, there are inherent delays with the process. 

However, Plaintiff may be assured that the Court is monitoring service and he will be notified if it is necessary for him 

to take any further action regarding Defendants Hayes and Rotman.

Case 1:10-cv-01746-AWI-SKO Document 74 Filed 07/30/13 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

Regarding Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice, the Clerk’s Office correctly declined to 

provide Plaintiff with blank subpoenas and it correctly notified Plaintiff that a re-service order for 

Defendant Rotman had been filed. Plaintiff is required to file a motion if he seeks the issuance of 

subpoenas, and the Marshal was already provided with all necessary forms for re-service on 

Defendant Rotman. Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice shall be disregarded.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion for an order directing service is DENIED as 

moot and Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice is DISREGARDED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 30, 2013 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-01746-AWI-SKO Document 74 Filed 07/30/13 Page 2 of 2