Opinion
23-cv-03660-HSG
01-31-2024
ANDREW LOPEZ, Plaintiff, v. M. LEE, et al., Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING REQUESTS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AND FOR FUTURE FILINGS TO BE IN PAPER FORMAT; DENYING REQUEST FOR SERVICE ON DEFENDANTS
RE: DKT. NOS. 6, 10
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR., UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff, an inmate at San Quentin State Prison, has filed a pro se action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court will screen Plaintiff's complaint (Dkt. No. 1) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A in a separate order. This order addresses Dkt. No. 6 and Dkt. No. 10.
Dkt. No. 6. In Dkt. No. 6, Plaintiff requests an extension of time to pay his filing fee, an extension of time to file the consent form, and that all future filings be transmitted in paper form via United States Postal Service. Dkt. No. 6. The Court GRANTS these requests. Plaintiff has paid the filing fee and the consent form, Dkt. Nos. 5, 7, and the Court deems the filing fee timely paid and the consent form timely filed. Generally speaking, all court orders are mailed to prisoner-plaintiffs via United States postal mail, with the exception of Court orders or Clerk's Notices issued at initial filing. Court orders or Clerk's Notices issued at initial filing are sent via electronic mail to the CDCR, and CDCR staff must print and deliver the documents to the prisoner-plaintiff. N.D. Cal. General Order No. 76.
Dkt. No. 10. In Dkt. No. 10, Plaintiff requests that the United States Marshal serve the named defendants. Dkt. No. 10. This request is DENIED as premature. The Court has not yet screened the complaint and determined if it states cognizable claims against any of the named defendants. If the Court finds in its screening order that the complaint states cognizable claims against any defendants, the Court will order the United States Marshals Service to effect service of process upon the appropriate persons.
This order terminates Dkt. Nos. 6, 10.
IT IS SO ORDERED.