Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

BUCKINS v. McCOY, 16-cv-06157-SI. (2017)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20170828715 Visitors: 5
Filed: Aug. 24, 2017
Latest Update: Aug. 24, 2017
Summary: ORDER RE. SERVICE ISSUES AND VACATING BRIEFING SCHEDULE Re: Dkt. Nos. 1 and 23 SUSAN ILLSTON , District Judge . In this pro se prisoner's civil rights action, Darrell Buckins complained about his medical care while he was housed at the Glenn Dyer Detention Facility in Oakland, California. Service of process was ordered on eight defendants, but only one defendant (i.e., Alameda County) has appeared in this action so far. Service of process apparently was attempted on other defendants at v
More

ORDER RE. SERVICE ISSUES AND VACATING BRIEFING SCHEDULE

Re: Dkt. Nos. 1 and 23

In this pro se prisoner's civil rights action, Darrell Buckins complained about his medical care while he was housed at the Glenn Dyer Detention Facility in Oakland, California. Service of process was ordered on eight defendants, but only one defendant (i.e., Alameda County) has appeared in this action so far. Service of process apparently was attempted on other defendants at various addresses provided by Buckins, but service was not attempted on the defendants at the jail. Service will now be attempted at the jail.

Accordingly, the clerk shall issue a summons and the United States Marshal shall serve, without prepayment of fees, the summons, a copy of the amended complaint, a copy of the order of service, and a copy of this order upon each of the following defendants at the Glenn Dyer Detention Facility at 550 6th Street, Oakland, CA 94607:

— Dr. Brenda McCoy — Debra Walker (licensed vocational nurse) — Jeffrey Cooper (physician's assistant) — Corizon Health Services, Inc. — Dr. Harold Orr — Dr. Maria Magat — Alameda County Sheriff Gregory Ahern

Other than Sheriff Ahern, the individual defendants apparently work for Corizon Health Services, Inc., the health care provider for the Glenn Dyer Detention Facility.

In light of the need to resolve the service of process problems for seven of the eight defendants, the court now VACATES the briefing schedule for all defendants to file a motion for summary judgment or other dispositive motion. Defendant Alameda County's motion for an extension of the deadline to file a dispositive motion is DISMISSED as moot because the briefing schedule is now being vacated. (Docket No. 23.) Once the service of process problems are resolved, the court will set a new briefing schedule so that all the defendants will be on the same briefing schedule if possible.

A separate order is being issued today to deal with the potentially erroneous service on defendant Walker.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer