Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01258/USCOURTS-casd-3_08-cv-01258-1/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:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\IEG\08cv1258- Serve FAC -1- 08cv1258

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAYMELLE HINTON,

CDCR #T-85879,

Civil No. 08-1258 IEG (CAB)

Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING U.S.

MARSHAL TO EFFECT SERVICE

OF FIRST AMENDED

COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO FED.

R. CIV. P. 4(c)(3) AND 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(d)

vs.

BOXER, Correctional Officer; 

BENNETT, Correctional Officer;

ROBERTS, Correctional Officer,

Defendants.

I. Procedural History

On July 10, 2008, Jaymelle Hinton (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner currently incarcerated

at California State Prison-Sacramento (“CSP-SAC”) in Represa, California, and proceeding in

pro se, filed a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff did not prepay the

$350 filing fee mandated by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); instead, he filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma

Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) [Doc. No. 2]. 

On August 25, 2008, this Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP but

simultaneously sua sponte dismissed his Complaint for failing to state a claim upon which

§ 1983 relief could be granted. See Aug. 25, 2008 Order at 7-8. Nonetheless, Plaintiff was

granted leave to file an Amended Complaint in order to correct the deficiencies of pleading

Case 3:08-cv-01258-IEG-CAB Document 8 Filed 12/16/08 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:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\IEG\08cv1258- Serve FAC -2- 08cv1258

identified by the Court. Id. at 8. On November 13, 2008, Plaintiff filed his First Amended

Complaint (“FAC”). 

II. Sua Sponte Screening per 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A

As the Court stated in its previous Order, the Prison Litigation Reform Act obligates the

Court to review complaints filed by all persons proceeding IFP and 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

prisoner and all other IFP complaints, or any portions thereof, which are frivolous, malicious,

fail to state a claim, or which seek 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. 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 directing that the Complaint be served 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

§ 1915A). 

Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment excessive force claims in his

First Amended Complaint survive the sua sponte screening required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)

and 1915A(b), and that Plaintiff is therefore automatically 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)

(providing that “service be effected by a United States marshal, deputy Untied States marshal,

or other officer specially appointed by the court . . . when the plaintiff is authorized to proceed

Case 3:08-cv-01258-IEG-CAB Document 8 Filed 12/16/08 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:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\IEG\08cv1258- Serve FAC -3- 08cv1258

in forma pauperis pursuant to 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, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants “Unknown Officer” and Bennett-Garza are DISMISSED from this

action for Plaintiff’s failing to re-allege any claims against these Defendants. SeeKing v. Atiyeh,

814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987) (Defendants not named and claims not re-alleged in an

amended pleading are deemed waived.)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:

2. The Clerk shall issue a summons upon the remaining Defendants and 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, and certified copies of his

First Amended Complaint and the summons for purposes of serving each of these Defendants.

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).

3. Defendants are thereafter ORDERED to reply to the 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 screening

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

Case 3:08-cv-01258-IEG-CAB Document 8 Filed 12/16/08 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:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\IEG\08cv1258- Serve FAC -4- 08cv1258

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). 

4. 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.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: December 16, 2008

IRMA E. GONZALEZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

Case 3:08-cv-01258-IEG-CAB Document 8 Filed 12/16/08 Page 4 of 4