Greer v. Moon et al, No. 2:2020cv00647 - Document 10 (D. Utah 2020)

Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER denying 4 Motion for Service by Process; granting 5 Pro Se Motion for Email Filing and Notification. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jared C. Bennett on 10/9/2020. (jwt)
Download PDF
Greer v. Moon et al Doc. 10 Case 2:20-cv-00647-TC-JCB Document 10 Filed 10/09/20 PageID.164 Page 1 of 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH RUSSELL G. GREER, MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER Plaintiff, Case No. 2:20-cv-00647-TC-JCB v. JOSHUA MOON, publisher of the website Kiwi Farms; and KIWI FARMS, a website, District Judge Tena Campbell Magistrate Judge Jared C. Bennett Defendants. District Judge Tena Campbell referred this case to Magistrate Judge Jared C. Bennett pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). 1 Before the court are pro se Plaintiff Russell G. Greer’s (“Mr. Greer”): (1) motion for service of process 2 and (2) motion for email filing and notification. 3 As an initial matter, the court notes that Mr. Greer has been permitted to proceed in forma pauperis in this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (“IFP Statute”). The court addresses the above-referenced motions in turn below. Based upon the following analysis, Mr. Greer’s motion for service of process is denied, and his motion for email filing and notification is granted. 1 ECF No. 9. ECF No. 4. 3 ECF No. 5. 2 Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:20-cv-00647-TC-JCB Document 10 Filed 10/09/20 PageID.165 Page 2 of 3 ANALYSIS I. Motion for Service of Process Mr. Greer moves the court for service of process and that service be processed by email because defendants’ location is unknown to Mr. Greer. However, when a case is proceeding under the IFP Statute, the 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 allows the court to screen the complaint in such a case to determine whether it should be served upon the named defendant(s) 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 determined whether Mr. Greer’s complaint in this case should indeed be served on the named defendants. If the court determines that the complaint should be served on the named defendants, the court will also determine whether service should be processed by alternative means. Mr. Greer does not need to take any action to trigger service of process. Thus, Mr. Greer’s motion is denied. II. Motion for Email Filing and Notification Under DUCivR 5-1(b), Mr. Greer moves for permission in this case to email documents to the Clerk of the Court for filing and to receive electronic notifications of case activity. Based upon Mr. Greer’s agreement to abide by the conditions and requirements of DUCivR 5-1(b), his motion is granted. The Clerk of the Court is directed to use the email address set forth in Mr. Greer’s motion for sending him electronic notifications of activity in this case. 2 Case 2:20-cv-00647-TC-JCB Document 10 Filed 10/09/20 PageID.166 Page 3 of 3 ORDER In summary, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 1. Mr. Greer’s motion for service of process 4 is DENIED. 2. Mr. Greer’s motion for email filing and notification 5 is GRANTED. DATED this 9th day of October 2020. BY THE COURT: JARED C. BENNETT United States Magistrate Judge 4 5 ECF No. 4. ECF No. 5. 3