Zemaitiene v. Salt Lake County et al, No. 2:2017cv00007 - Document 12 (D. Utah 2017)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION denying 4 Motion for Service of Process. 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. Signed by Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner on 3/27/17. (dla)
Download PDF
Zemaitiene v. Salt Lake County et al Doc. 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION KRISTINA ZEMAITIENE, Plaintiff, MEMORANDUM DECISION v. Case No. 2:17-cv-00007-DAK-PMW SALT LAKE COUNTY, et al., Defendants. District Judge Dale A. Kimball Chief Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner District Judge Dale A. Kimball referred this case to Magistrate Judge Paul M. Warner pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). 1 The court permitted Plaintiff Kristina Zemaitiene (“Plaintiff”) to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 2 Before the court is Plaintiff’s motion for service of process on Defendants Salt Lake County, Taylorsville City, Tracy Wyant, the Unified Police Department of Greater Salt Lake, Joel Knighton, and Denise Lovendahl 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 should indeed be served on the named defendants. For that reason, Plaintiff’s motion for service of 1 Dkt. No. 11. Dkt. No. 2. 3 Dkt. No. 4. 2 Dockets.Justia.com process is unnecessary and is 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 27th Day of March, 2017. BY THE COURT: PAUL M. WARNER Chief United States Magistrate Judge 2