Case ID: f-appx_416/html/0642-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Brian Darnell EDWARDS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CALIFORNIA STATE PRISON LOS ANGELES COUNTY; et al., Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 10-55463.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 15, 2011.
    
    Filed Feb. 25, 2011.
    Brian Darnell Edwards, Susanville, CA, pro se.
    Attorney General Ces, Esquire, AGCAOffice of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    
      Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Brian Darnell Edwards, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to serve the complaint. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The record reflects that the district court failed to screen this case as required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2)(B). We therefore vacate and remand with instructions to screen the complaint.

If on remand the district court determines that Edwards’ claims are sufficient to satisfy the screening requirements, then the court should proceed to order service of process in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(3).

Edwards shall bear his own costs on appeal.

VACATED and REMANDED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.