Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00807/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00807-22/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

MICHAEL J. PAYAN,

Plaintiff,

vs.

H. TATE, et al., 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:13cv00807 LJO DLB PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR SERVICE 

DOCUMENTS AS MOOT

(Document 87)

Plaintiff Michael J. Payan (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On December 2, 2015, the Court issued an order directing Plaintiff to return service 

documents. Therefore, Plaintiff’s December 15, 2015, motion requesting that the Court order 

service is DENIED AS MOOT.

On December 15, 2015, Plaintiff filed a document with the Court inquiring as to why 

service documents were not included for the Doe Defendants. Plaintiff is informed that the 

United States Marshal cannot initiate service of process on a Doe Defendant. Therefore, the 

Court will send Plaintiff the appropriate service documents at such time that he ascertains the

identities of the Doe defendants. Plaintiff may attempt to identify the unknown Defendants 

Case 1:13-cv-00807-LJO-BAM Document 89 Filed 12/17/15 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

through the discovery process. Crowley v. Bannister, 734 F.3d 967, 978 (9th Cir. 2013) (quoting 

Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 E.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980)). At this time, however, discovery is 

stayed pending the resolution of the motion for summary judgment. If Plaintiff’s claims survive 

the exhaustion challenge, he will be given sufficient time to complete discovery.

Insofar as Plaintiff requests that he be permitted to serve “the position,” rather than an 

individual, he is informed that section 1983 liability is based on an individual’s actual 

involvement in the alleged events. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 17, 2015 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00807-LJO-BAM Document 89 Filed 12/17/15 Page 2 of 2