(PC) Humes v. Lukenbill ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JON HUMES, No. 2:17-cv-2609 MCE KJN P 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 LUKENBILL, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a former jail inmate, now state prisoner, proceeding pro se. On October 30, 18 2020, the undersigned ordered plaintiff to show cause why defendant Lukenbill should not be 19 dismissed based on plaintiff’s failure to timely serve process. (ECF No. 39.) On November 12, 20 2020, plaintiff filed a request that the U.S. Marshal serve process on Deputy Greg Lukenbill at the 21 Placer County Sheriff’s Office in Auburn, California. (ECF No. 40.) However, service of 22 process on Deputy Greg Lukenbill has already been attempted and returned unexecuted. (ECF 23 No. 26 (“No one named Greg Lukenbill at this agency.”).) Thus, plaintiff’s motion is denied. 24 Plaintiff asks the court to provide plaintiff with a court or private investigator. First, the 25 court does not employ a “court investigator.” As explained in the court’s order to show cause, the 26 court cannot investigate for litigants. (ECF No. 39 at 3; see also ECF Nos. 30 at 2, 35.) Second, 27 the expenditure of public funds on behalf of an indigent litigant is proper only when authorized 28 by Congress. Tedder v. Odel, 890 F.2d 210 (9th Cir. 1989). The in forma pauperis statute does 1 | not authorize the expenditure of public funds for investigators. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Finally, 2 | plaintiff states that he recently asked his sister to help verify Deputy Lukenbill’s first name, but 3 | concedes he does not know if she will help. (ECF No. 40.) Plaintiffs statement is speculative at 4 | best, and fails to address what efforts he has taken since June 14, 2018, to identify Deputy 5 | Lukenbill. In an abundance of caution, plaintiff is granted an additional thirty days in which to 6 || respond to the October 30, 2020 order to show cause. Failure to respond will result in a 7 | recommendation that this action be dismissed, as set forth in the October 30, 2020 order. 8 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 9 1. Plaintiffs request (ECF No. 40), construed as a motion, is denied; and 10 2. Plaintiff is granted an additional thirty days from the date of this order in which to 11 | comply with the October 30, 2020 order to show cause. 12 | Dated: November 23, 2020 8 Aectl Aharon 14 KENDALL J. NE jume2609.den UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28