Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
Back to docket
N.D. Cal.Procedural orderFiled Jan. 7, 2020

Khan v. City of Pinole Police Department

Judge
Yvonne Rogers
Docket
4:19-cv-06316
Court
U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
Pages
2
Civil ProcedurePro Se
In one sentence

In David Khan v. City of Pinole Police Department, Judge Rogers denied without prejudice the plaintiffs’ request to have the Marshals serve remaining defendants.

Who this affects

The plaintiffs’ request to have the United States Marshals Service serve the remaining unserved defendants was denied without prejudice; the defendants’ pending motions to dismiss were not decided by this order.

What happened

In David Khan v. City of Pinole Police Department, three plaintiffs representing themselves asked the court to arrange service of the complaint on defendants they had not yet served.

The court had not yet reviewed the complaint to decide whether it stated a legally valid claim. Several defendants who accepted service had also filed motions to dismiss, which were still being briefed.

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denied the request without prejudice. She said the court would review the complaint while deciding the dismissal motions and could later order Marshals Service if the complaint stated a valid claim.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Khan v. City of Pinole Police Department · No. 4:19-cv-06316
Judge
Yvonne Rogers
Date
Jan. 7, 2020

Background

Plaintiffs David Khan, Nay Zar Tun Kyaw, and AK, who were representing themselves, filed a motion asking the court to issue summonses and order service on defendants they had not yet served. The plaintiffs said they had difficulty serving certain defendants.

The court had granted the plaintiffs permission to proceed without paying filing fees, which gave it authority to order the United States Marshals Service to serve the complaint. But the court also had to conduct an initial screening to determine whether the complaint stated a legally valid claim. Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson had granted the plaintiffs’ application but reserved screening until they could receive assistance from the Federal Pro Bono Project, and he stayed the case. The stay was later modified, and the case was reassigned.

Before the court screened the operative complaint, defendants who had accepted service filed several motions to dismiss. Those motions were still being briefed.

Ruling

Because the complaint had not yet been screened, the court held that it could not then order service on the remaining defendants. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers therefore denied without prejudice the motion to issue summonses. The court stated that it intended to screen the complaint while addressing the defendants’ motions to dismiss. If it determined that the plaintiffs had stated a legally valid claim, it would extend the service deadline and order the Marshals Service to serve the remaining defendants. The order terminated the motion at Docket Number 31.

The authoritative version

Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.