Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-05197/USCOURTS-caed-1_01-cv-05197-1/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN VLASICH,

Plaintiff,

v.

REYNOSO, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 01 5197 AWI LJO P 

ORDER FINDING SERVICE OF COMPLAINT

APPROPRIATE AND FORWARDING

DOCUMENTS TO PLAINTIFF 

Steven Vlasich (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On January 10, 2005, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found Plaintiff’s Second

Amended Complaint stated cognizable claims of excessive force and deliberate indifference

under the Eighth Amendment against Defendants Reynoso, Keener and Priolo. The District

Court’s holding was reversed and the case was remanded to this Court for further proceedings. 

Case 1:01-cv-05197-AWI-LJO Document 59 Filed 05/23/06 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

1The Court found that the Third Amended Complaint stated a cognizable excessive force claim against

Defendants Reynoso, Keener, Priolo and Brock. (Doc. 50)

2

On January 14, 2005, Plaintiff moved for leave to file a Third Amended Complaint and

lodged a Third Amended Complaint. The Court granted Plaintiff’s request but found that

Plaintiff did not state cognizable claims against the Doe Defendants.1 The Court then dismissed

the Third Amended Complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiff filed a Fourth Amended Complaint

on March 22, 2005. 

The Court has screened Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and finds

that it states cognizable claims for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants Reynoso,

Keener, Priolo and Brock for excessive force and against Defendants Keener and Priolo for 

violation of the Eighth Amendment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534

U.S. 506, 512-15 (2002); Austin v. Terhune, 367 F.3d 1167, 1171 (9th Cir. 2004); Jackson v.

Carey, 353 F.3d 750, 754 (9th Cir. 2003); Galbraith v. County of Santa Clara, 307 F.3d 1119,

1125-26 (9th Cir. 2002). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Service is appropriate for the following defendants:

LINDA K. BROCK

SGT. F. REYNOSO

LT. J.A. KEENER

CPT. B. PRIOLO

2. The Clerk of the Court shall send Plaintiff FOUR USM-285 forms, FOUR

summons, a Notice of Submission of Documents form, an instruction sheet and a

copy of the Fourth Amended Complaint filed March 22, 2005.

3. Within THIRTY (30) DAYS from the date of this Order, Plaintiff shall complete

the attached Notice of Submission of Documents and submit the completed

Notice to the Court with the following documents:

a. Completed summons;

b. One completed USM-285 form for each Defendant listed above; and 

c. FIVE copies of the endorsed Fourth Amended Complaint filed March 22,

Case 1:01-cv-05197-AWI-LJO Document 59 Filed 05/23/06 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

2005.

4. Plaintiff need not attempt service on Defendants and need not request waiver of

service. Upon receipt of the above-described documents, the court will direct the

United States Marshal to serve the above-named Defendants pursuant to Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 4 without payment of costs. 

5. The failure to comply with this Order will result in a Recommendation that this

action be dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 19, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:01-cv-05197-AWI-LJO Document 59 Filed 05/23/06 Page 3 of 3