Opinion
Civil Action No. 05-cv-02091-MSK-OES.
January 6, 2006
ORDER
The court's Order Granting Service By United States Marshal was filed in this matter on November 30, 2005. However, no returns of service nor waivers of service have yet been filed in this regard. Accordingly, it would appear that the court currently lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendants in this case. Additionally, while the plaintiff has served copies of his currently pending motions upon Ms. Elizabeth A. Weishaupl of the Office of the U.S. Attorney, that office has not yet either indicated it is accepting representation of the defendants or appeared as counsel of record on their behalf in this case. Plaintiff has provided no proof that he has served these documents upon the defendants individually. All motions must be served upon the opposing party or their counsel. See FED.R.CIV.P. 5(a).
Plaintiff also complains that service of process in this matter is not being effected as promptly as he would desire and he takes issue with the lack of notation contained within the public record in this regard. However, based on the language of the Order Granting Service by United States Marshal, the office of the Clerk is attempting to obtain waivers of service in this regard prior to directing service by the United States Marshal. This process has been underway for a little over a month's time, with two holiday periods falling within that time. There is no evidence or well-pled facts from which the plaintiff can demonstrate that the process is proceeding any differently than it does in the literally hundreds of such cases pending in this court.
Accordingly, based on the current record herein, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff's Motion To Direct The Defendants To Permit Plaintiff To Obtain Declarations [Filed December 15, 2005; Docket #17] and plaintiff's Motion For Order To Direct The Defendants To Permit Plaintiff To Obtain Declarations [Filed December 22, 2005; Docket #21] are both DENIED, without prejudice, as premature. Case management issues such as the scope and timing of the filing of pretrial discovery motions will be addressed at the Preliminary Scheduling/Status Conference to be scheduled by separate order.
Further, it is hereby ORDERED that plaintiff's Motion For Order To Determine Why The Court's Courts Are Not Being Followed [Filed December 22, 2005; Docket #20] is DENIED as MOOT.