Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01336/USCOURTS-casd-3_09-cv-01336-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

K :\C O M M O N \E V E R Y O N E \_EFILE-PRO SE\L A B \09cv1336-S e rve F A C .w pd, 1199 1 09cv1336 LAB (PCL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TIMOTHY THOMAS,

CDCR #E-91948,

Civil No. 09-1336 LAB (PCL)

Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING

U.S. MARSHAL TO EFFECT

SERVICE OF AMENDED

COMPLAINT PURSUANT 

TO FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(3) 

& 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)

vs.

R. HERNANDEZ; ROBERTS

NELSON; IRRAZUSTA;

Defendants.

I.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On June 19, 2009, Timothy Thomas, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a civil

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Additionally, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma

Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) [Doc. No. 2], along with a Motion for Leave

to Amend [Doc. No. 3]. The Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP and granted

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint. See July 29, 2009 Order at 3-4.

On August 24, 2009, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint (“FAC”).

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:09-cv-01336-LAB-PCL Document 10 Filed 11/09/09 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

K :\C O M M O N \E V E R Y O N E \_EFILE-PRO SE\L A B \09cv1336-S e rve F A C .w pd, 1199 2 09cv1336 LAB (PCL)

II. SUA SPONTE SCREENING PER 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A

The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) obligates the Court to review complaints

filed by all persons proceeding IFP and by those, like Plaintiff, who are “incarcerated or detained

in any facility [and] accused of, sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for, violations of

criminal law or the terms or conditions of parole, probation, pretrial release, or diversionary

program,” “as soon as practicable after docketing.” See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b).

Under these provisions, the Court must sua sponte dismiss any IFP or prisoner complaint, or any

portion thereof, which is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or which seeks damages

from defendants who are immune. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A; Lopez v. Smith,

203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (§ 1915(e)(2)); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d

443, 446 (9th Cir. 2000) (§ 1915A).

Before amendment by the PLRA, the former 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) permitted sua sponte

dismissal of only frivolous and malicious claims. Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1126, 1130. An action is

frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in either law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,

324 (1989). However 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A now mandate that the court reviewing

an IFP or prisoner’s suit make and rule on its own motion to dismiss before effecting service of

the Complaint by the U.S. Marshal pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(2). Id. at 1127 (“[S]ection

1915(e) not only permits, but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint

that fails to state a claim.”); see also Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998)

(discussing 28 U.S.C. § 1915A).

“[W]hen determining whether a complaint states a claim, a court must accept as true all

allegations of material fact and must construe those facts in the light most favorable to the

plaintiff.” Resnick, 213 F.3d at 447; Barren, 152 F.3d at 1194 (noting that § 1915(e)(2)

“parallels the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)”). In addition, the Court’s

duty to liberally construe a pro se’s pleadings, see Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dept.,

839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988), is “particularly important in civil rights cases.” Ferdik v.

Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992).

/ / /

Case 3:09-cv-01336-LAB-PCL Document 10 Filed 11/09/09 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

K :\C O M M O N \E V E R Y O N E \_EFILE-PRO SE\L A B \09cv1336-S e rve F A C .w pd, 1199 3 09cv1336 LAB (PCL)

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims are sufficiently pleaded to

survive the sua sponte screening required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b). Therefore,

Plaintiff is entitled to U.S. Marshal service on his behalf. See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1126-27; 28

U.S.C. § 1915(d) (“The officers of the court shall issue and serve all process, and perform all

duties in [IFP] cases.”); FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(3) (“[T]he court may order that service be made by

a United States marshal or deputy marshal ... if the plaintiff is authorized to proceed in forma

pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.”). Plaintiff is cautioned, however, that “the sua sponte

screening and dismissal procedure is cumulative of, and not a substitute for, any subsequent Rule

12(b)(6) motion that [a defendant] may choose to bring.” Teahan v. Wilhelm, 481 F. Supp. 2d

1115, 1119 (S.D. Cal. 2007).

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk shall issue a summons as to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint [Doc.

No. 8] upon Defendants and shall forward it to Plaintiff along with a blank U.S. Marshal Form

285 for each of these Defendants. In addition, the Clerk shall provide Plaintiff with a certified

copy of this Order, the Court’s July 29, 2009 Order granting Plaintiff leave to proceed IFP [Doc.

No. 6], and certified copies of his First Amended Complaint and the summons for purposes of

serving each Defendant. Upon receipt of this “IFP Package,” Plaintiff is directed to complete

the Form 285s as completely and accurately as possible, and to return them to the United States

Marshal according to the instructions provided by the Clerk in the letter accompanying his IFP

package. Thereafter, the U.S. Marshal shall serve a copy of the First Amended Complaint and

summons upon each Defendant as directed by Plaintiff on each Form 285. All costs of service

shall be advanced by the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(3).

2. Defendants are thereafter ORDERED to reply to Plaintiff’s First Amended

Complaint within the time provided by the applicable provisions of Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(a). See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2) (while Defendants may occasionally be permitted

to “waive the right to reply to any action brought by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or

other correctional facility under section 1983,” once the Court has conducted its sua sponte

Case 3:09-cv-01336-LAB-PCL Document 10 Filed 11/09/09 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

K :\C O M M O N \E V E R Y O N E \_EFILE-PRO SE\L A B \09cv1336-S e rve F A C .w pd, 1199 4 09cv1336 LAB (PCL)

screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A(b), and thus, has made a preliminary

determination based on the face on the pleading alone that Plaintiff has a “reasonable

opportunity to prevail on the merits,” Defendants are required to respond). 

3. Plaintiff shall serve upon Defendants or, if appearance has been entered by

counsel, upon Defendants’ counsel, a copy of every further pleading or other document

submitted for consideration of the Court. Plaintiff shall include with the original paper to be

filed with the Clerk of the Court a certificate stating the manner in which a true and correct copy

of any document was served on Defendants, or counsel for Defendants, and the date of service.

Any paper received by the Court which has not been filed with the Clerk or which fails to

include a Certificate of Service will be disregarded.

DATED: November 9, 2009

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:09-cv-01336-LAB-PCL Document 10 Filed 11/09/09 Page 4 of 4