Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01318/USCOURTS-azd-2_07-cv-01318-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kevin Lewis Hobson
Plaintiff
Temple-Inlet
Defendant

Document Text:

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

1

The Order reads in pertinent part: 

Service by waiver or of the summons and complaint shall be at government

expense on the defendant by the U.S. Marshal or his authorized representative.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Kevin Lewis Hobson, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Temple-Inlet, 

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 07-1318-PHX-SMM

ORDER 

Currently pending before the Court are several motions filed by pro se Plaintiff Kevin

Lewis Hobson. The Court will first address Plaintiffs Motions for Service by U.S. Marshal

(Docs. 5 and 10) wherein Plaintiff respectfully requests that the US Marshal Service serve his

summons and Complaint. Pursuant to the Court’s Order of July 12, 2007 (Doc. 3), wherein the

Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, the U.S. Marshal has previously

been ordered to serve Plaintiff’s summons and Complaint.1

 Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motions for

Service by U.S. Marshal(Doc. 5 and 10) are DENIED as MOOT. 

The Court also has before it a Motion for Preliminary Pretrial Conference (Doc. 6) and

a Motion for Leave to File a Proposed Case Management Plan (Doc. 8). The Court finds that

Case 2:07-cv-01318-SMM Document 11 Filed 08/03/07 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 - 2 -

because Defendant has yet to be served, it is premature to both set a pretrial conference and file

a proposed case management plan. Therefore, the motions are DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED DENYING Plaintiff’s Motions for Service by U.S.

Marshal(Doc. 5 and 10).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Pretrial

Conference (Doc. 6).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a

Proposed Case Management Plan (Doc. 8).

DATED this 3rd day of August, 2007.

Case 2:07-cv-01318-SMM Document 11 Filed 08/03/07 Page 2 of 2