Bloomquist v. State of Utah et al, No. 2:2015cv00848 - Document 72 (D. Utah 2016)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION -denying 25 Motion for Service of Process. ; denying 26 Motion for Service of Process at this time. The court will screen Plaintiffs complaint and determine whether it should be served on the named defendants. It is unnecessary for Plaintiff to take any action to trigger that process. See Memorandum Decision for details. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner on 9/14/16. (jmr)

Download PDF
Bloomquist v. State of Utah et al Doc. 72 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION DARRELL C. BLOOMQUIST, MEMORANDUM DECISION Plaintiff, Case No. 2:15-cv-00848-CW-PMW v. STATE OF UTAH et al., Defendants. District Judge Clark Waddoups Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner District Judge Clark Waddoups referred this case to Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).1 The court permitted Plaintiff Darrell Bloomquist (“Plaintiff”) to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.2 Before the court is Plaintiff’s motions for service of process on defendants Charles Anderson and Carl Merino.3 When a case is proceeding under the IFP statute, officers of the court are required to issue and serve all process and perform all duties related to service of process. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). At the same time, the IFP statute requires the court to screen the complaint in such a case to determine whether it should be served upon the named defendants or dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). In this case, the court has not yet completed that screening process and, consequently, has not yet made a determination about whether Plaintiff’s complaint in this case 1 Docket no. 7. 2 Docket nos. 71. 3 Docket nos. 25 and 26. Dockets.Justia.com should indeed be served on the named defendants. For that reason, Plaintiff’s motions for service of process are unnecessary and are DENIED at this time. As indicated above, the court will screen Plaintiff’s complaint and determine whether it should be served on the named defendants. It is unnecessary for Plaintiff to take any action to trigger that process. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 14th day of September, 2016. BY THE COURT: PAUL M. WARNER United States Magistrate Judge 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.