(PS) Jones v. Velocity Technology Solutions

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 GARRISON JONES, No. 2:19-cv-2374-KJM-EFB PS Plaintiff, v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

VELOCITY TECHNOLOGY

SOLUTIONS LLC; STEVE KLOEBLEN;

SUSAN HALTOPP; MICHAEL

BALDWIN; SHANA COLEMAN;

VICKIE LEROUX; J.C. ODOM; CHAD CARLSON; and CHRIS HELLER, 17 Defendants.

19 Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a complaint and an application to proceed in forma 20 pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915. ECF No. 1 & 2. Prior to the court screening the complaint 21 (see 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)), defendant Velocity Technology Solutions (“Velocity”) specially 22 appeared in this action and moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil 23 Procedure (“FRCP”) 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(5) for lack of personal jurisdiction due to insufficient 24 service of process. ECF No. 5. In response to Velocity’s motion, plaintiff filed a motion for 25 sanctions. ECF No. 16. For the reasons explained below, plaintiff’s application to proceed in 26 27 This case, in…