Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00773/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00773-2/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT HACKWORTH,

Plaintiff,

v.

TORRES, et.al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F OWW LJO P 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FILED UNDER

RULE 4

(Doc. 10.) 

Robert Hackworth (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

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

Plaintiff filed the instant action on June 19, 2006. On December 29, 2006, Plaintiff filed

a pleading titled “Motion Filed Under Rule 4(A) and 4(M) requesting that this matter be moved

through the court. . .” Plaintiff states that the 120 days that the Court is allotted to “deal” with

this matter have expired. 

Rule 4(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows for the issuance of a summons

and service of the Complaint. Rule 4(m) sets out the time limit for service of the Complaint

within 120 days. However, as the instant action is filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C.§ 1983, the Court

Case 1:06-cv-00773-RC Document 11 Filed 01/08/07 Page 1 of 2
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

2

is required by law to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The

court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally

“frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). 

With respect to service, the Court will, sua sponte, direct the United States Marshal to

serve the Complaint only after the Court has screened the Complaint and determined that it

contains cognizable claims for relief against the named Defendants. Thus, the time limits set

forth in Rule 4 are inapplicable until such time as the Court determines the Complaint states

cognizable claims for relief. As the Court has yet to screen Plaintiff’s case, Plaintiff’s request for

service is premature and unnecessary. 

Plaintiff is further informed that the Court has hundreds of prisoner civil rights cases

pending before it and which were filed before Plaintiff’s case. The Court screens the cases in the

order in which they are filed. Because of the large volume of cases, an inmate can experience

delay in resolution of his case. Plaintiff can rest assured that should his address with the court

remain current, he will receive all orders issued in his case. 

The Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. Plaintiff’s Motion regarding processing of his case is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 7, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00773-RC Document 11 Filed 01/08/07 Page 2 of 2