Opinion
1:20-cv-01823-NE-BAM (PC)
12-06-2021
MICHAEL SHORTER, Plaintiff, v. SULLIVAN, et al., Defendants.
ORDER CONSTRUING PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO AMENDED STANDING ORDER AS A MOTION FOR SERVICE AND MOTION FOR A COPY OF LOCAL RULES (ECF NO. 17)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SERVICE AND FOR A COPY OF LOCAL RULES (ECF NO. 17)
BARBARA A. MCAULIFFE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Plaintiff Michael Shorter (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On August 5, 2021, the undersigned issued findings and recommendations recommending that the federal claims in this action be dismissed, with prejudice, based on Plaintiff's failure to state a cognizable claim upon which relief may be granted, and the Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's purported state law claims. (ECF No. 12.) Following an extension of time, Plaintiff filed objections on October 4, 2021. (ECF No. 15.) Those findings and recommendations are currently pending before the District Judge.
On October 28, 2021, Chief District Judge Mueller issued an Order of Clarification: No. District Judge Available to Hear Matters, which explained the current status of civil Unassigned/NONE cases such as the instant action, in light of the continued judicial emergency in this district. (ECF No. 16.)
Currently before the Court is Plaintiff's response to that order, filed December 2, 2021. (ECF No. 17.) In his response, Plaintiff requests that the Court effect service on the defendants in this action, as well as a copy of the Local Rules. (Id.) The Court construes the filing as a motion for service pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 and a motion for a copy of the Local Rules.
Plaintiff's request for service is premature. The undersigned has recommended that the federal claims in this action be dismissed, with prejudice, based on Plaintiff's failure to state a cognizable claim upon which relief may be granted, and that the Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's purported state law claims. While those findings and recommendations have not yet been adopted by the District Judge, if the findings and recommendations are adopted, this action will be dismissed. If the District Judge finds instead that Plaintiff has stated cognizable claims upon which this action should proceed, the Court will then order service on the appropriate defendant(s). Plaintiff does not need to request service.
With respect to Plaintiff's request for a copy of the Local Rules, Plaintiff is advised that the Court generally does not send litigants free copies of rules or case law, and any deviation from that standard practice represents an exception which must be justified. Copies of the Court's Local Rules should be available to Plaintiff from the law library at his institution.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
1. Plaintiff's response to the amended standing order, (ECF No. 17), is CONSTRUED as a motion for service and a motion for a copy of the Local Rules;
2. Plaintiff's motion for service, (ECF No. 17), is DENIED as premature; and
3. Plaintiff's motion or a copy of the Local Rules, (ECF No. 17), is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.