Stuckey

Stuckey v. Risenhoover

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaMarch 9, 20204:19-cv-03780California469 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANDRE KENNETH STUCKEY,

Case No. 19-cv-03780-YGR (PR) Plaintiff, NOTICE REGARDING INABILITY TO v. SERVE DEFENDANTS DR. MARIA BOSTANJIAN AND DR. DEVINDER SUE RISENHOOVER, et al., KUMAR 10 Defendants.

This Order addresses issues regarding service in the above-captioned action. Service has been ineffective on Defendants Dr. Maria Bostanjian and Dr. Devinder Kumar. The Court has been informed Defendants Bostanjian and Kumar were not served because “Pelican Bay State Prison does not have authorization to accept service for [these] individuals.” Dkt. 14. As Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, he is responsible for providing the Court with current addresses for all Defendants so that service can be accomplished. See Walker v. Sumner, 14 F.3d 1415, 1422 (9th Cir. 1994); Sellers v. United States, 902 F.2d 598, 603 (7th Cir. 1990). While Plaintiff may rely on service by…

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.