Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01382/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01382-0/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

1

 The proceedings were assigned to this Court, but all post-service matters have been referred

to Magistrate Judge William McCurine, Jr. by Local Rule 72.3(e), “Assignment of § 1983 Prisoner Civil

Cases to United States Magistrate Judges,” pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636. 

K:\COMMO N\EVERYO NE\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\06-1382-FAC.wpd, 2137 -1- 06cv1382

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RELAUN DEADMON,

CDC #D-58206,

Civil No. 06-1382 LAB (WMc)

Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING U.S.

MARSHAL TO EFFECT SERVICE

OF SUMMONS AND FIRST

AMENDED COMPLAINT 

[Doc. No. 6] PURSUANT TO

FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(2) AND 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(d) 

vs.

N. GRANNIS, et al.,

Defendants.

On July 3, 2006, Plaintiff, Relaun Deadmon, a state prisoner currently incarcerated at the

Corcoran State Prison located in Corcoran, California, and proceeding pro se, submitted a civil

rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 In addition, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Proceed

In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”). The Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP but sua sponte

dismissed his Complaint for failing to state a claim upon which § 1983 relief could be granted.

See August 25, 2006 Order at 5-6. Nonetheless, the Court granted Plaintiff forty five (45) days

to file an Amended Complaint correcting the deficiencies of pleading identified by the Court.

Id. at 6. On October 19, 2006, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) [Doc. No.

6].

////

Case 3:06-cv-01382-LAB-WMC Document 7 Filed 02/13/07 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

K:\COMMO N\EVERYO NE\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\06-1382-FAC.wpd, 2137 -2- 06cv1382

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

The Prison Litigation Reform Act 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 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); see also Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th

Cir. 1998) (discussing § 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)”). 

Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint survives 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)(2) (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 in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.”).

II. Conclusion and Order

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk shall issue the summons as to Defendants, provide Plaintiff with a

certified copy of both this Order and his First Amended Complaint and forward them to Plaintiff

along with a blank U.S. Marshal Form 285 for each Defendant named in his First Amended

Complaint. Plaintiff shall complete the Form 285s and forward them to the United States

Case 3:06-cv-01382-LAB-WMC Document 7 Filed 02/13/07 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

K:\COMMO N\EVERYO NE\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\06-1382-FAC.wpd, 2137 -3- 06cv1382

Marshal. The U.S. Marshal serve a copy of the First Amended Complaint upon Defendants as

directed by Plaintiff on each U.S. Marshal 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)(2).

2. 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

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.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 7, 2007

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01382-LAB-WMC Document 7 Filed 02/13/07 Page 3 of 3