Arnette

(PC) Jones v. Arnette

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaFebruary 1, 20221:16-cv-01212California924 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

I. BACKGROUND

23 Jeremy Jones (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 24 with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Americans with Disabilities Act 25 (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12132. This case now proceeds with Plaintiff’s ADA claims against 26 defendants Vasquez, Keener, Gonzalez, Flores, Arnett,1 Zamora, and Lopez; Plaintiff’s Eighth

28 1 Sued as Arnette. Amendment claims against defendants Vasquez, Keener and Gonzalez; and Plaintiff’s due process claims against defendants Vasquez, Keener, and Gonzalez. All of the Defendants have been served except Defendants Vasquez and Lopez. II. SERVICE BY UNITED STATES MARSHAL

Pursuant to Rule 4(m),

If a defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court - - on motion or on its own after notice to the plaintiff -- must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made within a specified time. But if the plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court must extend the time for service for an appropriate period. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m). In cases…

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.