Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01746/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01746-2/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE GARCIA RODRIGUEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

PEARSON, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-01746-SMS

ORDER DENYINGPLAINTIFF’S MOTIONFOR

SERVICE OF PROCESS BY UNITED STATES

MARSHALL AS PREMATURE

(Doc. 11)

Plaintiff Joes Garcia Rodriguez, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the complaint upon which this

action proceeds on October 5, 2009, and the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma

pauperis on October 7, 2009. Now pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s request that the United

States Marshal be directed to serve the Complaint on Defendants, filed December 23, 2009.

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 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 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). 

The Court will direct the United States Marshal to serve the Complaint only after it has

1

Case 1:09-cv-01746-SKO Document 12 Filed 04/30/10 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

determined that the Complaint contains cognizable claims for relief against the named defendants. 

The Court has not yet screened Plaintiff’s complaint, but will do so in due course. Until the Court

has screened the Complaint, any request for service by the Marshal is premature and will be denied.

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion for Service of

Process by United States Marshall, filed December 23, 2009, is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 30, 2010 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:09-cv-01746-SKO Document 12 Filed 04/30/10 Page 2 of 2