elaine v. van beveren divorce lawyer sacramento sued in federal court for emotional distress,...
Upload: sacramento-family-court-news-sacramento-superior-court-controversy-investigative-reporting
Post on 19-Oct-2015
94 views
DESCRIPTION
Order authorizing service of complaint in federal lawsuit against Elaine Van Beveren and the Law Offices of Elaine Van Beveren. Elaine V. Van Beveren is a Sacramento Superior Court sworn temporary judge and officer of the Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section Family Law Executive Committee. Van Beveren is sued by self-represented pro per Robert Saunders for misconduct in her capacity as minor's counsel in a Sacramento Family Court case. For articles about Elaine Van Beveren at Sacramento Family Court News, visit this web page: http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/ELAINE%20VAN%20BEVERENFor articles about plaintiff Robert Saunders: http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.com/search/label/ROBERT%20SAUNDERSSacramento Family Court News is a nonprofit journalism organization publishing original, independent news, aggregated news, news analysis, opinion, satire and parody. Unlike the Sacramento Bee, Daily Journal Corporation publications, and local broadcast media we are independent of corporate, shareholder, advertiser and government influence. Our independence from outside influence allows SFCN to investigate and publish the stories that the self-censoring Judicial Branch legal community and mainstream media often are reluctant to report.Like ProPublica, much of our work is public interest investigative journalism that "shines a light on the exploitation of the weak by the strong and on the failures of those in power to vindicate the trust placed in them." We report on virtually all family court issues including divorce, child custody and visitation, child and spousal support, attorney fees and sanctions, court procedure and policy, and appeals from family court. We cover the financial and socioeconomic power imbalances often prevalent in family court cases. Oligarchical factions exert significant influence over many government institutions in California, and Sacramento Family Court is no exception. Socioeconomically disadvantaged court users often are treated as second-class citizens by the court, which operates a two-track system of justice providing preferential treatment to litigants who can afford representation by members of the Sacramento County Bar Association Family Law Section, according to evidence compiled by family court watchdogs and whistleblowers.Sacramento Family Court News Home Page: http://sacramentocountyfamilycourtnews.blogspot.comTRANSCRIPT
-
12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
ROBERT SAUNDERS,
Plaintiff, No. 2:10-cv-02559 GEB KJN PS
v.
THE LAW OFFICES OF ELAINE VAN BEVEREN, ELAINE VAN BEVEREN, Individually,
Defendants. ORDER
/
Plaintiff, who is proceeding without counsel, filed his complaint and an
application to proceed in forma pauperis on September 21, 2010. On December 1, 2010, the
undersigned granted plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis, but dismissed plaintiffs
complaint pursuant to the courts screening authority under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2) and granted
leave to amend. (Order, Dec. 1, 2010, Dkt. No. 3.) On January 14, 2011, plaintiff filed a First
Amended Complaint alleging a federal claim for violations of his civil rights and several state
law claims. (First Am. Compl., Dkt. No. 4.)
The court is also required to screen complaints brought by parties proceeding in
forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2); see also Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th
Cir. 2001) (per curiam) ([T]he provisions of 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to
Case 2:10-cv-02559-GEB-KJN Document 5 Filed 02/10/11 Page 1 of 3
PatSFCN-2014-Full
-
12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2
prisoners.); accord Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). Pursuant to
28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2), the court is directed to dismiss a case filed pursuant to the in forma
pauperis statute if, at any time, it determines that the allegation of poverty is untrue, or if the
action is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks
monetary relief against an immune defendant. See also Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1126-27 (It is also
clear that section 1915(e) not only permits but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma
pauperis complaint that fails to state a claim.).
The undersigned cannot conclude on the present record that plaintiffs action is
frivolous, fails to state claims on which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief from an
immune defendant. The undersigned reserves decision as to plaintiffs claims until the record is
sufficiently developed, and this order does not preclude defendants from challenging plaintiffs
complaint through a timely motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 or other
appropriate methods of challenging plaintiffs First Amended Complaint. Accordingly, the
undersigned will order service of the First Amended Complaint on defendants Elaine Van
Beveren, an individual, and the Law Offices of Elain Van Beveren.
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Service of plaintiffs First Amended Complaint is appropriate for the
following defendants: Elaine Van Beveren, an individual, and the Law Offices of Elain Van
Beveren.
2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to issue forthwith all process pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4.
3. The Clerk of Court shall send plaintiff two USM-285 forms, one
summons, an endorsed copy of the First Amended Complaint, this courts scheduling order, and
the forms providing notice of the magistrate judges availability to exercise jurisdiction for all
purposes.
4. Plaintiff is advised that to effectuate service, the U.S. Marshal will require:
Case 2:10-cv-02559-GEB-KJN Document 5 Filed 02/10/11 Page 2 of 3
-
12
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
3
a. One completed summons;
b. One completed USM-285 form for each defendant to be served;
c. A copy of the complaint for each defendant to be served, with an
extra copy for the U.S. Marshal; and
d. A copy of this courts scheduling order and related documents for
each defendant to be served; and
5. Plaintiff shall supply the United States Marshal, within 30 days from the
date this order is filed, all information needed by the Marshal to effectuate service of process, and
shall, within 10 days thereafter, file a statement with the court that such documents have been
submitted to the United States Marshal.
6. The U.S. Marshal shall serve process, with copies of this courts
scheduling order and related documents, within 90 days of receipt of the required information
from plaintiff, without prepayment of costs. The United States Marshal shall, within 10 days
thereafter, file a statement with the court that such documents have been served. If the U.S.
Marshal is unable, for any reason, to effect service of process on any defendant, the Marshal shall
promptly report that fact, and the reasons for it, to the undersigned.
7. The Clerk of Court shall serve a copy of this order on the United States
Marshal, 501 I Street, Sacramento, CA 95814 (tel. 916-930-2030).
8. Plaintiffs failure to comply with this order may result in a
recommendation that this action be dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: February 9, 2011
_____________________________________KENDALL J. NEWMANUNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Case 2:10-cv-02559-GEB-KJN Document 5 Filed 02/10/11 Page 3 of 3