Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00416/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-00416-9/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY DEWAYNE LEE TURNER,

Plaintiff,

v.

SACRAMENTO CITY FIRE DEPT., et 

al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:19-cv-0416 TLN DB P

ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner, proceeds pro se with a civil rights action brought under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. In an order filed on May 3, 2021, plaintiff was ordered to complete and return to 

the court, within thirty days and at the same time, the properly completed USM-285 form, 

summons, and two copies of the operative complaint so that defendant Guibord could be served. 

On June 16, 2021, the court received plaintiff’s returned documents. The documents are not 

properly completed.

Plaintiff did not submit two copies of the operative complaint as directed. Plaintiff also

failed to properly fill out the USM-285 form and summons as directed in that there is no clear 

address information for service of defendant Guibord, who is the only defendant to be served in 

this case. Instead of including the information for defendant Guibord, plaintiff has included the 

names and information of other individuals- White Bear, Hopkins, and Waggoner. The 

undersigned recommended White Bear, Hopkins, and Waggoner be dismissed from this case in 

an order filed on March 15, 2021. (ECF No. 26.) Plaintiff filed objections to that recommendation 

Case 2:19-cv-00416-TLN-SCR Document 32 Filed 06/23/21 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

and the district court ultimately agreed with the undersigned and dismissed plaintiff’s claims 

against White Bear, Hopkins, and Waggoner in an order filed on April 28, 2021. (ECF No. 28.)

Plaintiff is cautioned that while his pleadings are liberally construed as a pro se litigant, he

must still follow the court’s orders and rules of court. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th 

Cir. 1987) (“Pro se litigants must follow the same rules of procedure that govern other litigants.”) 

(overruled on other grounds by Lacey v. Maricopa County, 693 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2012)); E.D. 

Cal. Local Rule 183. Plaintiff will be given another opportunity to provide the required 

documents to serve defendant Guibord. If plaintiff does not wish to pursue this case against 

defendant Guibord only, then he may file a notice of voluntary dismissal in which case the 

undersigned will recommend the court dismiss the case without prejudice.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:

1. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff one USM-285 form, one summons, 

an instruction sheet, and a copy of the Fourth Amended Complaint filed October 14, 2020; and

2. Within thirty days, plaintiff shall submit the properly completed USM-285 form and 

summons with the two copies of the endorsed Fourth Amended complaint filed October 14, 2020, 

to the court. Failure to return these documents within the specified time period will result in a 

recommendation that this action be dismissed.

Dated: June 22, 2021

DLB7

turn0416.8f

Case 2:19-cv-00416-TLN-SCR Document 32 Filed 06/23/21 Page 2 of 2