Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01413/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-01413-1/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

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

exhausted his administrative remedies. Specifically, he states that he is awaiting the final level

response. Thus, this case may be premature. 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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HARVEY EUGENE LARSON, No. CIV S-06-1413-MCE-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

RUNNELS, 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). 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). 

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

Case 2:06-cv-01413-ALA Document 7 Filed 10/05/06 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

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

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. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Service is appropriate for the following defendant(s): 

SCHWARZENEGGER, and

LESLIE; 

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; 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. Two completed USM-285 form(s); and

d. Three copies of the endorsed complaint.

DATED: October 4, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-01413-ALA Document 7 Filed 10/05/06 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

3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HARVEY EUGENE LARSON, No. CIV S-06-1413-MCE-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs.

RUNNELS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

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.

DATED: __________________ ____________________________________

Plaintiff

Case 2:06-cv-01413-ALA Document 7 Filed 10/05/06 Page 3 of 3