Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00631/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00631-2/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DWIGHT A. STATEN,

Plaintiff,

v.

ARTHUR CALDERON, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 06-631 OWW LJO P

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR ORDER OF

SERVICE OF COMPLAINT (Doc. 30.) 

Dwight A. Staten(“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

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

Plaintiff filed the instant action on March 16, 2004, in the U.S. District Court for the

Eastern District of California, Sacramento Division. Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on

October 12, 2004. Magistrate Judge Nowinski issued an Order to Show Cause Why the

Complaint should not be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust his administrative remedies

on October 27, 2004. On January 6, 2005, Findings and Recommendations were issued that the

case be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The District Court

adopted the Findings and Recommendations on February 22, 2005, and dismissed the case. 

Plaintiff appealed to the Ninth Circuit which appeal was dismissed for lack of

jurisdiction. 

Case 1:06-cv-00631-DCB Document 32 Filed 07/13/06 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

On March 23, 2005, the District Court reopened the case in the interests of justice. The

case was reviewed and a determination that venue was improper was made. Hence, an Order

transferring the case to the Fresno Division of the Eastern District issued. This Court received

the case on May 24, 2006. 

On June 13, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Notice of Motion to Proceed with service of the

summons and complaint per Judge Moulds Order. 

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). By

screening the case, the Court will determine whether it 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). 

In this case, the screening function has not yet been performed by the Court. According

to the Court docket, the Order referenced by Plaintiff and issued by Judge Moulds merely

transferred the case to this Court. It did not make a determination that the Complaint stated a

cognizable claim for relief such that service of the Complaint should now commence. In any

event, the Court will not issue an order for service of the Complaint until such time as a

determination that the Complaint states cognizable claims is made. Plaintiff should note that the

Court has pending before it hundreds of similar cases. The Court generally proceeds with the

cases in the order that they were filed. Thus, there may be some delay in the progression of the

case. Plaintiff is urged to be patient and to keep the Court informed if his address should it

change. 

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1 The Motion to Proceed With Service of the Complaint is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 13, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00631-DCB Document 32 Filed 07/13/06 Page 2 of 2