Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02520/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-02520-4/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRANTZ DAVIS, No. CIV S-07-2520-FCD-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

JOE McGRATH, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1), filed on

November 26, 2007. The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking

relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28

U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 

Plaintiff claims violations of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. He

claims that he is being held in segregation under a new Behavior Modification Unit program

which is tantamount to cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eight Amendment. He

also claims his property was confiscated and sent to his family outside of prison without any due

process, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. 

Case 2:07-cv-02520-FCD-CMK Document 13 Filed 04/21/08 Page 1 of 4
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

The court notes that, according to plaintiff’s complaint, plaintiff may not have 1

exhausted his administrative remedies. However, because exhaustion is not a jurisdictional

requirement for bringing suit, see Rumbles v. Hill, 182 F.3d 1064, 1070 (9th Cir. 1999), and

because failure to exhaust is an affirmative defense which can only be raised by defendants, see

Wyatt v. Terhune, 280 F.3d 1238, 1245-46 (9th Cir. 2002), dismissal at this time for failure to

exhaust is not appropriate. 

2

The complaint appears to state a cognizable claim for relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). If the allegations are proven, plaintiff has a reasonable 1

opportunity to prevail on the merits of this action. The court, therefore, finds that service is

appropriate and will direct service by the U.S. Marshal without pre-payment of costs. Plaintiff is

informed, however, that this action cannot proceed further until plaintiff complies with this order. 

Plaintiff is warned that failure to comply with this order may result in dismissal of the action. 

See Local Rule 11-110. 

Plaintiff names, as defendants in his complaint, Warden Tom Felker, Chief

Deputy Secretary Joe McGrath, Callison (a property officer), and three John Does. The John

Doe defendants consist of a captain for C-yard, a counselor for 5-6 building, and a psychiatric

therapist for C-yard. The court cannot order service of process on fictitious defendants. Upon

discovering the name of the “Doe” defendants, or any of them, plaintiff must promptly file a

motion for leave to amend, accompanied by a proposed amended complaint identifying the

additional defendant or defendants. Plaintiff is informed that the court cannot refer to a prior

pleading in order to make plaintiff’s amended complaint complete. Local Rule 15-220 requires

that an amended complaint be complete in itself without reference to any prior pleading. This is

because, as a general rule, an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. See Ferdik

v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1262 (9th Cir. 1992). Therefore, in an amended complaint, as in an

original complaint, each claim and the involvement of each defendant must be sufficiently

alleged. Plaintiff is cautioned that undue delay in discovering defendants’ names and seeking

leave to amend may result in the denial of leave to proceed against these defendants.

Case 2:07-cv-02520-FCD-CMK Document 13 Filed 04/21/08 Page 2 of 4
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

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The court authorizes service on the following defendant(s): 

Tom Felker, Joe McGrath, and Officer Callison;

2. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff one USM-285 form for each

defendant identified above, one summons, an instruction sheet, and a copy of the complaint filed

November 26, 2007; and

3. Within 30 days of the date of service of this order, plaintiff shall complete

the attached Notice of Submission of Documents and submit the following documents to the

court:

a. The completed Notice of Submission of Documents;

b. One completed summons;

c. Three completed USM-285 form(s); and

d. Four copies of the endorsed complaint filed November 26, 2007.

DATED: April 21, 2008

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRANTZ DAVIS, No. CIV S-07-2520-FCD-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

JOE McGRATH, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Case 2:07-cv-02520-FCD-CMK Document 13 Filed 04/21/08 Page 3 of 4
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

4

NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS

Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with the court's

order:

 1 completed summons form;

 completed USM-285 form(s); and

 copies of the complaint filed on November 26, 2007.

DATED: __________________ ____________________________________

Plaintiff

Case 2:07-cv-02520-FCD-CMK Document 13 Filed 04/21/08 Page 4 of 4