Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00898/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00898-5/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STANLEY SIMS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-0898 MCE EFB P

vs.

VEAL, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a prisoner without counsel suing for alleged civil rights violations. See 42

U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on the second amended complaint filed November 9, 2007. 

For the reasons explained, the court finds that the complaint states cognizable claims for relief

against Haverson, Lesaine and Petrey and that the findings and recommendations issued on

October 24, 2007, are moot.

On May 11, 2007, plaintiff filed his initial complaint naming eleven defendants. The

court reviewed this complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and found that plaintiff stated

cognizable claims for relief against defendants Haverson, Lesaine and Petrey, but not against any

other defendant. The court gave plaintiff the option of filing an amended complaint to cure the

deficiencies in claims against eight defendants or pursuing the claims he did state against the

other three defendants. Plaintiff chose the former, and on August 6, 2007, he filed a first 

Case 2:07-cv-00898-KJM-EFB Document 23 Filed 03/27/08 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

2

amended complaint naming the same eleven defendants. Again, the court found that plaintiff

stated cognizable claims for relief against Haverson, Lesaine and Petrey, but not against any

other defendants. Thus, on October 24, 2007, the court gave plaintiff 30 days to submit

materials necessary to serve process on Haverson, Lesaine and Petrey and recommended that the

claims against the other defendants be dismissed. Instead of timely submitting the materials for

service of process, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on November 9, 2007. It appears

that plaintiff merely omits the defendants and claims that this court has recommended be

dismissed and repeats the claims he already stated against Haverson, Lesaine and Petrey. Thus,

while the second amended complaint has served to delay resolution of these proceedings, this

action now proceeds on it. See Local Rule 15-220; see Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir.

1967) (an amended complaint supersedes all prior complaints). 

 The court has reviewed the second amended complaint and finds that for the limited

purposes of § 1915A screening, the complaint states cognizable claims for relief against

Haverson, Lesaine and Petrey pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). 

However, plaintiff must again submit materials necessary to effect service of process. 

Furthermore, since plaintiff himself withdrew his claims against the other defendants, the

October 24, 2007, findings and recommendations to dismiss claims against them are moot. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that

1. Service is appropriate for defendants Haverson, Lesaine and Petrey.

2. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff three USM-285 forms, one summons, an

instruction sheet and one copy of the November 9, 2007, pleading.

3. Within 30 days from service of this order, plaintiff shall complete the attached Notice

of Submission of Documents and submit it to the court with the completed summons and USM285 forms and four copies of the endorsed November 9, 2007, pleading.

4. Upon receipt of the necessary materials, the court will direct the United States

Marshal to serve defendants Haverson, Lesaine and Petrey pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Case 2:07-cv-00898-KJM-EFB Document 23 Filed 03/27/08 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

3

Procedure 4 without payment of costs. Failure to comply with this order will result in a

recommendation that this action be dismissed.

 5. The October 24, 2007, recommendation that claims against J. Pearson, N. Grannis, S.

Moreno, J. Spaulding, R. Anderson, M. Veal, R. St. Germain, M. Taylor, J. Walker and J.

Silbaugh are vacated on the ground they are moot.

Dated: March 27, 2008.

Case 2:07-cv-00898-KJM-EFB Document 23 Filed 03/27/08 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

4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STANLEY SIMS,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-0898 MCE EFB P

vs.

VEAL, et al.,

Defendants. NOTICE OF SUBMISSION

 / OF DOCUMENTS

Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with the court's

order filed .

One completed summons

 completed USM-285 forms

 copies of the 

 November 9, 2007 Amended Complaint

DATED: 

 

Plaintiff

Case 2:07-cv-00898-KJM-EFB Document 23 Filed 03/27/08 Page 4 of 4