Gonzalez v. Chao

S.D. California

Gonzalez v. Chao

DecidedJanuary 21, 2021

Docket3:20-cv-00530

StatusUnknown

This text of Gonzalez v. Chao (Gonzalez v. Chao) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Gonzalez v. Chao, (S.D. Cal. 2021).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANGELICA GRACIA GONZALEZ, Case No.: 20-cv-530-GPC-JLB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER: 13 v. (1) DIRECTING U.S. MARSHAL TO 14 ELAINE L. CHAO, Secretary Department EFFECT SERVICE; AND of Transportation, 15 Defendant. (2) SETTING STATUS HEARING 16

17 [ECF No. 9] 18 On January 12, 2021, Plaintiff filed nunc pro tunc a response letter to this Court’s 19 Order to Show Cause. ECF No. 9. The response letter expressed Plaintiff’s difficulties 20 in effecting service. See id. 21 Construing the pro se Plaintiff’s response liberally, see Bernhardt v. Los Angeles 22 Cty., 339 F.3d 920, 925 (9th Cir. 2003), the Court constructs Plaintiff’s plea as needing 23 assistance from the U.S. Marshal to effect service. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) (discussing 24 the service process for proceedings in forma pauperis). The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s 25 request for U.S. Marshal service pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(3). 26 27 1 Accordingly, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to re-issue a summons as 2 || to Plaintiff’s Complaint upon Defendant, and provide Plaintiff with the “IFP Package,” 3 || consisting of the following: 4 1. The re-issued Summons; 5 2. A certified copy of this Order; 6 3. A certified copy of the Court’s Order granting Plaintiff's motion to proceed 7 in forma pauperis, ECF No. 5; 8 4. A certified copy of the Complaint; and 9 5. A blank U.S. Marshal Form 285. 10 Plaintiff shall complete the U.S. Marshal Form 285, and forward the Form 285 11 || along with the rest of the IFP Package to the U.S. Marshal. The Court reminds Plaintiff 12 || that plaintiffs must comply with the special requirements outlined in Federal Rule of 13 || Civil Procedure 4(i) for serving the United States and its agencies, officers, or employees. 14 Upon receipt of the IFP Package, the U.S. Marshal is ORDERED to serve a copy 15 || of the Complaint and re-issued Summons upon the Defendant as directed by Plaintiff on 16 complete U.S. Marshal Form 285. All costs of service will be advanced by the 17 || United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3). In addition, for good 18 ||cause appearing, the Court EXTENDS the time for effecting service for 45 days, 19 || pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). 20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a telephonic status hearing be set on March 21 2021 at 1:00 PM for briefing on Plaintiffs prosecution of the case. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 24 ||Dated: January 21, 2021 25 Hon. athe Coke 26 United States District Judge 27 28 20-cv-530-GPC-JLB

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANGELICA GRACIA GONZALEZ, Case No.: 20-cv-530-GPC-JLB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER: 13 v. (1) DIRECTING U.S. MARSHAL TO 14 ELAINE L. CHAO, Secretary Department EFFECT SERVICE; AND of Transportation, 15 Defendant. (2) SETTING STATUS HEARING 16

17 [ECF No. 9] 18 On January 12, 2021, Plaintiff filed nunc pro tunc a response letter to this Court’s 19 Order to Show Cause. ECF No. 9. The response letter expressed Plaintiff’s difficulties 20 in effecting service. See id. 21 Construing the pro se Plaintiff’s response liberally, see Bernhardt v. Los Angeles 22 Cty., 339 F.3d 920, 925 (9th Cir. 2003), the Court constructs Plaintiff’s plea as needing 23 assistance from the U.S. Marshal to effect service. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) (discussing 24 the service process for proceedings in forma pauperis). The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s 25 request for U.S. Marshal service pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(3). 26 27 1 Accordingly, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to re-issue a summons as 2 || to Plaintiff’s Complaint upon Defendant, and provide Plaintiff with the “IFP Package,” 3 || consisting of the following: 4 1. The re-issued Summons; 5 2. A certified copy of this Order; 6 3. A certified copy of the Court’s Order granting Plaintiff's motion to proceed 7 in forma pauperis, ECF No. 5; 8 4. A certified copy of the Complaint; and 9 5. A blank U.S. Marshal Form 285. 10 Plaintiff shall complete the U.S. Marshal Form 285, and forward the Form 285 11 || along with the rest of the IFP Package to the U.S. Marshal. The Court reminds Plaintiff 12 || that plaintiffs must comply with the special requirements outlined in Federal Rule of 13 || Civil Procedure 4(i) for serving the United States and its agencies, officers, or employees. 14 Upon receipt of the IFP Package, the U.S. Marshal is ORDERED to serve a copy 15 || of the Complaint and re-issued Summons upon the Defendant as directed by Plaintiff on 16 complete U.S. Marshal Form 285. All costs of service will be advanced by the 17 || United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3). In addition, for good 18 ||cause appearing, the Court EXTENDS the time for effecting service for 45 days, 19 || pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). 20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a telephonic status hearing be set on March 21 2021 at 1:00 PM for briefing on Plaintiffs prosecution of the case. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 24 ||Dated: January 21, 2021 25 Hon. athe Coke 26 United States District Judge 27 28 20-cv-530-GPC-JLB

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Gonzalez v. Chao, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gonzalez-v-chao-casd-2021.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack