Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06922/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06922-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT MISTRIEL, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

KERN COUNTY, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

CV F 03-6922 AWI WMW P

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

ORDER OF SERVICE 

(Document #17)

Plaintiff filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 23, 2005,

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On July 14, 2005, the Magistrate Judge ordered Plaintiff

to show cause why this action should not be dismissed as time barred. On August 8, 2005,

Plaintiff responded the Magistrate Judge’s order.

On May 20, 2005, Plaintiff filed a motion for service, which is pending before the court. 

The Magistrate Judge has not yet screened this action. 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 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). “Notwithstanding any

filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any

Case 1:03-cv-06922-AWI -SKO Document 26 Filed 03/29/06 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

time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a claim upon which

relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Until the amended complaint is screened,

service on Defendants is not appropriate.

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s May 20, 2005, motion for service

is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 27, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06922-AWI -SKO Document 26 Filed 03/29/06 Page 2 of 2