Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01362/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01362-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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.

AREVALOS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:19-cv-01362-LJO-BAM (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR SCREENING AND SERVICE

(ECF No. 13)

Plaintiff 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 initiated this case on 

September 27, 2019, (ECF No. 1), and filed a first amended complaint on October 27, 2019, 

(ECF No. 8).

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion, filed January 31, 2020, requesting that 

this case be moved through the courts pursuant to Rule 4. (ECF No. 13.) Plaintiff also inquires 

whether the defendants have been served or the complaint screened by the court. (Id.) The Court 

construes the request as a motion for screening of the complaint and service of the complaint.

Plaintiff is advised that the Court is required 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 will direct service of process pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 4 only after Plaintiff’s first amended complaint has been screened and found to state 

Case 1:19-cv-01362-KES-CDB Document 15 Filed 02/04/20 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

cognizable claims for relief. Once the amended complaint is screened and found to have stated a 

cognizable claim against any defendant, the appropriate defendants will be served.

The Court screens complaints in the order in which they are filed and strives to avoid 

delays whenever possible. However, there are hundreds of prisoner civil rights cases presently 

pending before the Court, and delays are inevitable. Due to the heavy caseload, Plaintiff’s first 

amended complaint is still awaiting screening. The Court is aware of the pendency of this case 

and will screen Plaintiff’s amended complaint in due course. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for screening and service, (ECF No. 13), is HEREBY 

DENIED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 3, 2020 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01362-KES-CDB Document 15 Filed 02/04/20 Page 2 of 2