Dayson

(PC) Fratus v. Dayson

Bad Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJuly 27, 20212:20-cv-00354California552 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 JOHN FRATUS, No. 2:20-cv-0354 TLN DB P Plaintiff, v. ORDER DAYSON, et al., Defendants. 15 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges that he was suffered side effects from psychiatric medication and was denied medical treatment. Plaintiff has filed the instant motion to compel seeking information from counsel for defendants Hurley and Lozano, so that defendants Dayson, Houston, Rodgers, Siegel, and Vallar can be served. (ECF No. 36.) For the reasons set forth below, the court will deny the motion without prejudice. Plaintiff was advised in the March 17, 2021 order that if the U.S. Marshal, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and the California Attorney General’s Office “are unable to effectuate service of process, the Court may make further orders requiring the plaintiff to assist in…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.