Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02514/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02514-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1983 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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JANAI MEEKS,

Plaintiff,

v.

NATASHA CHRONISTER, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:19-cv-2514-KJM-KJN (PS) 

ORDER GRANTING IFP REQUEST AND

DIRECTING SERVICE

(ECF No. 2)

Plaintiff, who proceeds in this action without counsel, previously requested leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (ECF No. 2.)1 On December 13, 2019, 

Magistrate Judge Cota found Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis affidavit made the showing required by 

§ 1915, and granted her request to proceed in forma pauperis.

2

 (ECF No. 3.) 

However, the determination that a plaintiff may proceed in forma pauperis does not 

complete the required inquiry. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, the court is directed to dismiss the 

case at any time if it determines that the allegation of poverty is untrue, or if the action is 

frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary 

 

1 This case proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to E.D. Cal. L.R. 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. 

§ 636(b)(1).

 

2 Soon after granting the IFP request, Magistrate Judge Cota recused himself from this action. 

(See ECF No. 4.) The case was then reassigned to the undersigned. 

Case 2:19-cv-02514-KJM-KJN Document 5 Filed 02/05/20 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

2

relief against an immune defendant.

In this case, Plaintiff attempts to state claims against three employees of the Oroville 

Child Services Department and one officer of the Oroville Police Department. (See generally

ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff’s claims are brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and concern the 

Department’s seizure and placement of her children in foster care. (See Id.) Based on the limited 

record, Plaintiff’s Complaint potentially states one or more claims against Defendants, and the

Court cannot conclude dismissal is otherwise appropriate. The Court reserves decision as to 

Plaintiff’s claims until the record is sufficiently developed, and this order does not preclude 

Defendant from challenging Plaintiff’s complaint through a timely motion pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 12 or other appropriate method of challenging Plaintiff’s pleading. 

Accordingly, the Court orders service of the Complaint on Defendant.

For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Service of the complaint is appropriate for Defendants named in the complaint 

(See ECF No. 1); 

2. The Clerk of Court is directed to issue forthwith all process pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 4; 

3. The Clerk of Court shall send Plaintiff one USM-285 form, one summons, this 

court’s scheduling order, and the forms providing notice of the magistrate judge’s 

availability to exercise jurisdiction for all purposes;

4. Plaintiff is advised that to effectuate service, the U.S. Marshal will require:

a. One completed summons;

b. One completed USM-285 form for each Defendant to be served; 

c. A copy of the complaint for each Defendant to be served, with an extra copy 

for the U.S. Marshal; and

d. A copy of this court’s scheduling order and related documents for each 

Defendant to be served. 

5. Plaintiff shall supply the U.S. Marshal, within 30 days from the date this order is 

filed, with all information needed by the U.S. Marshal to effectuate service of 

Case 2:19-cv-02514-KJM-KJN Document 5 Filed 02/05/20 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

3

process, and shall, within 10 days thereafter, file a statement with the court that 

such documents have been submitted to the U.S. Marshal; 

6. The U.S. Marshal shall serve process, with copies of this court’s scheduling order 

and related documents, within 90 days of receipt of the required information from 

plaintiff, without prepayment of costs; 

7. If a Defendant waives service, the Defendant is required to return the signed 

waiver to the U.S. Marshal. The filing of an answer or a responsive motion does 

not relieve a Defendant of this requirement, and the failure to return the signed 

waiver may subject a Defendant to an order to pay the costs of service by the U.S. 

Marshal; and

8. Failure to comply with this order may result in any appropriate sanctions, 

including monetary sanctions and/or dismissal of the action pursuant to Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

Dated: February 4, 2020

meek.2514

Case 2:19-cv-02514-KJM-KJN Document 5 Filed 02/05/20 Page 3 of 3