Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_01-cv-01128/USCOURTS-caed-2_01-cv-01128-1/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

LEVI FORD, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-01-1128 LKK KJM P

vs.

L. McJUNKIN, et al., 

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. On January 5, 2005, the court directed plaintiff to return the necessary forms for service

of summons and complaint on defendant within thirty days of the date of this order. On April 8,

2005, the court issued findings and recommendations, recommending that the action be

dismissed without prejudice for plaintiff’s failure to comply with the January 5 order. Plaintiff

did not file objections to these findings.

On May 24, 2005, the court adopted the findings and recommendations and

dismissed the action without prejudice. Judgment was entered on the same day. 

On June 22, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion for the appointment of counsel and a

motion for reconsideration, which the court will treat as a motion for relief from judgment. Fed.

R. Civ. P. 60(b). He claims that he had mailed objections to the April 8 findings and

Case 2:01-cv-01128-LKK -KJM Document 48 Filed 09/01/05 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

recommendations, explaining he needs the court’s power to direct the Department of Corrections

to release defendant McJunkin’s address for service of process. However, on December 14,

2004, the U.S. Marshal’s Service filed a “Process Return and Receipt,” noting its attempts to find

defendant McJunkin included contact with the personnel service of the Department of

Corrections. Docket No. 40. Moreover, plaintiff has not shown why he failed to seek the

court’s further assistance in serving process after the Marshal’s latest unsuccessful attempt to

serve defendant McJunkin. Laurino v. Syringa General Hospital, 279 F.3d 750, 753 (9th Cir. 

2002); Pittman v. LaFontaine, 756 F.Supp. 834, 847 (D. N.J. 1991). 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s June 22, 2005 motion for the appointment of counsel is denied; and

2. Plaintiff’s June 22, 2005 motion for reconsideration is denied. 

DATED: August 31, 2005.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

/ford1128.60(b)

Case 2:01-cv-01128-LKK -KJM Document 48 Filed 09/01/05 Page 2 of 2