Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00098/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-00098-2/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONALD GLASS,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. S. WOODFORD, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO.: 1:09-cv-00098-OWW-DLB PC

ORDER FINDING SERVICE OF COMPLAINT

APPROPRIATE AND FORWARDING

DOCUMENTS TO PLAINTIFF

(Doc. 1)

Plaintiff Donald Glass (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

Plaintiff filed this action on January 5, 2009. The Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and finds that it states a cognizable claim for relief under§ 1983

against (1) defendants Hamilton, Robles, Logue, Bautista, and John Doe for use of excessive

force in violation of the Eighth Amendment; (2) defendants Grandy, Riddle, McDaniel for

deliberate indifference to a serious medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment; and (3)

defendants Hamilton, Bautista, Logue, Robles, Riddle, Cedillos, Grandy, and McDaniel for

retaliation in violation of the First Amendment.1

In a separate Findings and Recommendations, the Court recommended dismissal of Defendants M.

1

Hodge-Wilkins, A. Olivas, Lawence, Poblete, Kim, Mason, Lockyer, Billiou, Diaz, Santos, Woodford, and B. Silva

for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and dismissal of Defendants D. Sheppard-Brooks, R.

Lowden, S. Issac, S. Pina, Keener, Indendi, Warren, Gonzales, Hayward, Dehlert, Braswell, Trujillo, Wood,

Scribner, Watson, Ortiz, Yamamoto, Lopez, Halberg, Coombs, and D. Matthews without prejudice for failure to

comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 18(a).

1

Case 1:09-cv-00098-AWI-BAM Document 18 Filed 03/24/10 Page 1 of 3
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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Service is appropriate for defendants2

Hamilton

Robles

Logue

Bautista

Grandy

Riddle

McDaniel

Cedillos

2. The Clerk of the Court shall send Plaintiff eight (8) USM-285 forms, eight (8)

summons, a Notice of Submission of Documents form, an instruction sheet and a

copy of the complaint filed January 5, 2009.

3. Within THIRTY (30) DAYS from the date of this Order, Plaintiff shall complete

the attached Notice of Submission of Documents and submit the completed

Notice to the Court with the following documents:

a. Completed summons;

b. One completed USM-285 form for each defendant listed above; and 

c. nine (9) copies of the endorsed complaint filed January 1, 2009.

4. Plaintiff need not attempt service on Defendants and need not request waiver of

service. Upon receipt of the above-described documents, the court will direct the

United States Marshal to serve the above-named Defendants pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 4 without payment of costs.

///

///

Plaintiff states a cognizable claim against Defendant John Doe. However, the Court cannot order the

2

Marshal to serve an unnamed defendant. Plaintiff must provide further information for service of process on

unnamed Defendant John Doe.

2

Case 1:09-cv-00098-AWI-BAM Document 18 Filed 03/24/10 Page 2 of 3
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

5. The failure to comply with this Order will result in a recommendation of dismissal

of this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 24, 2010 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 1:09-cv-00098-AWI-BAM Document 18 Filed 03/24/10 Page 3 of 3