Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00767/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00767-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

JASON DANIEL MATNEY, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

)

)

v. )

)

FRESNO HEAT TASK FORCE )

CALIFORNIA HIGHWAY PATROL )

OFFICER L. PRATT ID # 13569, )

et al., ) 

 )

Defendants. )

)

 )

1: 05-CV-00767-AWI-SMS

ORDER SCREENING AND CONSTRUING

COMPLAINT (DOC. 1)

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO

SUBMIT SERVICE DOCUMENTS 

DIRECTIONS TO THE CLERK AND TO

THE MARSHAL RE: SERVICE ON

DEFENDANTS

Plaintiff is a state prisoner at the Fresno County Jail

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an action for

damages and other relief concerning alleged civil rights

violations. The matter has been referred to the Magistrate Judge

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rules 72-302 and 72-304.

Plaintiff filed a complaint on June 14, 2005.

I. Screening and Construing the Complaint

The Court must screen complaints brought by prisoners

seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer. 28

U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion

Case 1:05-cv-00767-AWI -SMS Document 5 Filed 06/24/05 Page 1 of 5
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

thereof if the Court determines that an allegation of poverty is

untrue or that the action is 1) frivolous or malicious, 2) fails

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or 3) seeks

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.

28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A(b), 1915(e)(2).

 In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the Court

must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in question,

Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Trustees of Rex Hospital, 425 U.S. 738, 740

(1976), construe the pro se pleadings liberally in the light most

favorable to the Plaintiff, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447

(9th Cir. 2000), and resolve all doubts in the Plaintiff’s favor,

Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969).

If the Court determines that the complaint fails to state a

claim, leave to amend should be granted to the extent that the

deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by amendment. Lopez v.

Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). A

complaint, or a portion thereof, should only be dismissed for

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted if it

appears beyond doubt that the Plaintiff can prove no set of

facts, consistent with the allegations, in support of the claim

or claims that would entitle him to relief. See Hishon v. King &

Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984), citing Conley v. Gibson, 355

U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); see also Palmer v. Roosevelt Lake Log

Owners’ Ass’n., Inc., 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981).

Dismissal of a pro se complaint for failure to state a claim is

proper only where it is obvious that the Plaintiff cannot prevail

on the facts that he has alleged and that an opportunity to amend

would be futile. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d at 1128.

Case 1:05-cv-00767-AWI -SMS Document 5 Filed 06/24/05 Page 2 of 5
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

Here, Plaintiff alleges that on December 9, 2004, while

Plaintiff was attempting to regain control of his motorcycle

after being hit by a truck, California Highway Patrol Officer L.

Pratt of the Fresno Heat Team tackled him, slammed him to the

concrete, and punched him about eight times. Plaintiff was

shocked for ten seconds in his back with a taser by Fresno Police

Department Officer R. Dewey. He also alleges that all this was

also done by five unidentified police officers. Plaintiff names a

Doe as a defendant as well.

The naming of the two named defendants is arguably

ambiguous; it might appear that Plaintiff is naming the Fresno

Heat Task Force and the California Highway Patrol (CHP) as

defendants as well as the two individuals, CHP Officer L. Pratt

and Fresno Police Department Officer R. Dewey. However, Plaintiff

fails to allege any facts that would indicate that the CHP or the

Fresno Heat Task Force were responsible as defendants in this

action. Reasonably construed, the complaint is understood as

referring to a “Doe” or unnamed defendant, as well as two named

defendants: Officer L. Pratt, I.D. # 13569, of the Fresno Heat

Task Force of the California Highway Patrol; and Fresno Police

Officer R. Dewey. The complaint IS SO CONSTRUED.

II. Service

A review of the complaint submitted by Plaintiff shows that

if the pro se plaintiff’s allegations are liberally construed in

the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, Jackson v. Carey, 353

F.3d 750, 756 (9th Cir. 2003), Plaintiff has alleged facts that

might support an excessive force claim entitling him to relief

against Defendants Pratt and Dewey and the Doe defendant.

Case 1:05-cv-00767-AWI -SMS Document 5 Filed 06/24/05 Page 3 of 5
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

1Plaintiff states in his amended complaint that he has not yet

ascertained the identities of the Doe defendants. The inclusion of Doe

defendants under these circumstances is permissible, as plaintiff may amend

the complaint pursuant to Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure once

the identity of defendants is known through discovery or other means. Merritt

v. Los Angeles, 875 F.2d 765, 768 (9th Cir. 1989); see Swartz v. Gold Dust

Casino, Inc., 91 F.R.D. 543, 547 (D. Nev. 1981). Further, The United States

Marshal cannot initiate service of process on unknown defendants. Therefore,

the Court will send plaintiff the appropriate service documents at such time

that plaintiff ascertains that identities of the Doe defendants and requests

service.

4

Accordingly, the entire action does not fail to state a claim for

relief, and the Court will proceed to order the complaint served

on behalf of Plaintiff on Defendants Pratt and Dewey.1

A. Directions to the Marshal

Accordingly, when appropriate service documents are

submitted to the Court and forwarded to the Marshal, the United

States Marshal SHALL SERVE the complaint.

B. Directions to the Clerk and to Plaintiff

Service IS appropriate for the following defendants: Officer

L. Pratt, ID # 13569, of the Fresno Heat Task Force of the

California Highway Patrol; and Fresno Police Department Officer

R. Dewey.

Accordingly, 

1) The Clerk of the Court shall send Plaintiff two USM-285

forms, two summonses, an instruction sheet, a notice of

submission of documents form, an instruction sheet, and a copy of

the complaint filed in this Court. 

2) Within thirty days from the date of service 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:

Case 1:05-cv-00767-AWI -SMS Document 5 Filed 06/24/05 Page 4 of 5
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

5

 a. Completed summons;

 b. One completed USM-285 form for each defendant listed 

 above; and

 c. Three copies of the endorsed complaint filed in this 

 Court. 

 Plaintiff need not attempt service on defendants and need 

 not request waiver of service.

 3) Upon receipt of the documents described above, the Clerk

of the Court SHALL FORWARD them to the United States Marshal to

serve the above-named defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 4 without payment of costs.

Plaintiff’s failure to comply with this order will

result in a recommendation to dismiss this action for

failure to obey this Court’s order. Local Rule 11-110.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 23, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00767-AWI -SMS Document 5 Filed 06/24/05 Page 5 of 5