Doe
Doe v. Kane
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 JOHN DOE, No. 1:19-cv-00467-DAD-BAM Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ORDER v. SERVICE OF SUMMONS BY U.S.
MARSHALS
THOMAS R. KANE, et al., 9 (Doc. No. 27) Defendants. 11 Currently before the Court is Plaintiff John Doe’s (“Plaintiff”) motion to order the United 12 States Marshals Service to serve the summons and complaint on Defendants Thomas R. Kane, 13 Andrew Matevousian, Devin Blocher, Boudreau, Deborah G. Schult, and Mary Mitchell 14 (“Defendants”). (Doc. No. 27.) The Court finds the motion suitable for resolution without oral 15 argument and the matter is deemed submitted pursuant to Local Rule 230(g). Having considered 16 the motion, Plaintiff’s status report regarding service of the summons (Doc. No. 32), as well as 17 the entire record in this case, the Court DENIES the motion. 18 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the Court may authorize a party to proceed in forma pauperis, or 19 without prepayment of fees, in an action or proceeding, if the party submits an…