Hollis v. Gorby et al
Filing
18
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 3/31/10: Service is appropriate for A Tovar, Sr.: Clerk to send plaintiff: 1 Summons, 1 USM-285 Forms, and 1 copy of the Amended Complaint filed on 6/11/09; pltf's request that the court reconsider the decision not to order service of process on dft Clark 14 is DENIED. (Carlos, K) Modified on 3/31/2010 (Carlos, K).
<![CDATA[
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 vs. A. GORBY, et al., Defendants. / Plaintiff is a California prisoner proceeding pro se with an action for violation of civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On November 24, 2009, the court indicated that it would order service of process on defendant "Tovar" without indicating whether the court was referring to defendant Tovar, Jr. or defendant Tovar, Sr. The court will order service of process on both defendants Tovar, Jr. and Sr. Plaintiff has already provided the documents necessary for service on Tovar, Sr. Plaintiff will now be ordered to provide the documents for service on defendant Tovar, Jr. Plaintiff asks that the court reconsider the decision not to order service of process on defendant Clark. A court may reconsider a ruling under either Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) or 60(b). See Sch. Dist. Number. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). "Reconsideration is appropriate if the . . . court (1) is presented 1 ORDER IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MARVIN GLENN HOLLIS, Plaintiff, No. CIV S-09-1627 KJM P
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
with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in controlling law." Id. at 1263. Plaintiff has not shown good cause for reconsideration of the decision not to order service of process on defendant Clark. Therefore, plaintiff's motion for reconsideration will be denied. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff a USM-285 form, an instruction sheet and a copy of the complaint filed June 11, 2009. 2. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the attached Notice of Submission of Documents and submit the following documents to the court: a. The completed Notice of Submission of Documents; b. One completed USM-285 form for defendant Tovar, Jr.; and d. Two copies of the endorsed complaint filed June 11, 2009. 3. Plaintiff's request that the court reconsider the decision not to order service of process on defendant Clark (#14) is denied. DATED: March 31, 2010.
1 holl1627.tov
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 Plaintiff DATED: order filed Defendants. ____________________________________/ Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with the court's : completed USM-285 forms copies of the Complaint vs. NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS Plaintiff, No. CIV-S IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
