Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00586/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-00586-2/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WALTER V. LUCAS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-0586 GEB CMK P

vs.

B. ARNOLD, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On October 28, 2005, plaintiff filed a “motion for extension of time, in which to

prepare.” That document was not served on defendants. Failure to effect proper service has been

an ongoing problem for plaintiff. 

 Plaintiff is, once again, advised that every document submitted to the court for

consideration must be served on defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5. Plaintiff is required to serve all

documents in this action conventionally in accordance with the relevant provisions of Fed. R.

Civ. P. 5. See Local Rule 5-135(b). Since an attorney has filed a document with the court on

behalf of defendants, documents submitted by plaintiff must be served on that attorney and not

on the defendant. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(1). Conventional service is usually accomplished by

mailing a copy of the document to the attorney’s address of record. See Fed. R. Civ. P.

5(b)(2)(B). Plaintiff must include with every document filed in this action a certificate stating

Case 2:04-cv-00586-CMK Document 48 Filed 11/03/05 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

2

the date an accurate copy of the document was mailed to defendants’ attorney and the address to

which it was mailed. See Local Rule 5-135(b) and (c). It is not sufficient to state, as plaintiff

does in his latest filing, that service was effected on the U.S. District Court. Plaintiff must also

mail a copy of whatever he has filed to defendants’ counsel of record. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s October 28, 2005 “motion for extension of time, in which to

prepare” is stricken from the record and will not be considered; and

2. Plaintiff is ordered to properly serve any documents subsequently filed in this

action on defendants’ attorney of record. Plaintiff is warned that failure to comply with this

order may result in the dismissal of this action. See Local Rule 11-110.

DATED: November 2, 2005.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-00586-CMK Document 48 Filed 11/03/05 Page 2 of 2