Opinion
No. 2:10-cv-02559 GEB KJN PS.
October 17, 2011
ORDER
On October 13, 2011, defendants Elaine Van Beveren and the Law Offices of Elaine Van Beveren ("Van Beveren Defendants") filed a letter requesting guidance regarding their obligations to respond to plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (Dkt. No. 29). The Van Beveren Defendants' letter accurately recites the relevant procedural history supporting their request for clarification, and thus the undersigned does not recount that history in detail here. In short, it appears that plaintiff, who is proceeding in forma pauperis, served the Second Amended Complaint on the Van Beveren Defendants before the undersigned screened the Second Amended Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and ordered service on any defendant. The undersigned had previously notified the parties that the court would screen the Second Amended Complaint and order service on appropriate defendants only if necessary. Plaintiff's service on the Van Beveren Defendants was premature.
This action proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that no defendant is presently required to file a response to the Second Amended Complaint and shall file a response only after the court has screened the Second Amended Complaint, ordered service of that pleading if at all, and service has been effectuated.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: October 14, 2011