Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00535/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00535-31/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

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

LAMONT SHEPARD, 

 Plaintiff,

 v.

DR. COHEN,

 Defendant.

1:11-cv-00535-DAD-EPG (PC)

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

THE (2) ADDRESSES OF ERIC COHEN, 

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE 

EFFECTIVE SERVICE AND PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION TO PROCEED

(ECF NOS. 119 & 122)

30-DAY DEADLINE 

Lamont Shepard (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 21, 2016, Plaintiff 

filed a change of address and motion for the (2) addresses of Eric Cohen, extension of time to 

file effective service (“Motion 1”). (ECF No. 119). On October 26, 2016, Plaintiff filed a 

motion to proceed (“Motion 2”). (ECF No. 122)

According Motion 1, on August 2, 2016, Plaintiff was given defendant Dr. Cohen’s Los 

Angeles and New York addresses. On that same day Plaintiff filed a motion with the Court to 

effect service on one or both addresses of defendant Dr. Cohen. However, on September 5, 

2016, Plaintiff was placed in Administrative Segregation, and was separated from his property. 

On October 10, 2016, Plaintiff received the order authorizing service on defendant Dr. Cohen 

(ECF No. 118), but was unable to respond because he did not have his property. On October 

13, 2016, Plaintiff was transferred to California State Prison, Calipatria. Plaintiff looked 

through his legal mail, but was unable to locate the addresses for defendant Dr. Cohen. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff requested additional time so that he could find the addresses or get them 

Case 1:11-cv-00535-DAD-EPG Document 123 Filed 10/31/16 Page 1 of 2
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

again. Plaintiff also requested that “Defendants” resubmit defendant Dr. Cohen’s addresses to 

him.

According to Motion 2, Plaintiff found defendant Dr. Cohen’s address. Plaintiff stated

that service may proceed.

Motion 1 will be denied as moot, because Plaintiff has apparently found defendant 

Cohen’s address, and has submitted the service documents (ECF No. 120). Motion 2 will be

denied because a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis does not need to file a motion for 

service to proceed after submitting the service documents.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Motion 1 and Motion 2 are denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 31, 2016 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-00535-DAD-EPG Document 123 Filed 10/31/16 Page 2 of 2