Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00914/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00914-0/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

NICHOLAS MORAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

K. DUTRA, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:11-cv-914-LJO-MJS (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR SERVICE ON DEFENDANTS

(ECF No. 8)

Plaintiff Nicholas Moran (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the Court is Plaintiff’s “Motion/Request

for Status of Service to Defendants”. (ECF No. 8.) Plaintiff alleges that he filed this action

on June 1, 2011, and that he has not received any notice regarding whether or not

Defendants have been served.

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief

against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has

raised claims that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which

relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from

such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). The Court will direct the United States Marshal

to serve Plaintiff’s Complaint only after the Court has screened the Complaint and

determined that it contains cognizable claims for relief against the named Defendants. 

///

Case 1:11-cv-00914-LJO-MJS Document 9 Filed 01/25/12 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

The Court is aware of Plaintiff’s action and his Compliant is in line for screening. 

However, the Court has a large number of prisoner civil rights cases pending before it and

will screen Plaintiff’s Complaint in due course. Until such time as the Court has screened

Plaintiff’s Complaint, no further action is required.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion/Request for Status of Service to Defendants (ECF

No. 8) is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 25, 2012 /s/Michael J. Seng 

92b0h UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-2-

Case 1:11-cv-00914-LJO-MJS Document 9 Filed 01/25/12 Page 2 of 2