Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05358/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05358-2/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

 Plaintiff’s due process and denial of access to the courts claims against defendants Johnson and Stainer;

due process, denial of access to the courts, and Eighth Amendment claims against defendant Winett; and Eighth

Amendment claim against defendant Parker were dismissed from this action, with prejudice, for failure to state

claims upon which relief may be granted under section 1983. In addition, defendants Johnson, Stainer, Winett, and

Parker were dismissed from this action based on plaintiff’s failure to state any claims upon which relief may be

granted against them under section 1983.

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ERIC MARTIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

DAVID WINETT, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. CV-F-04-5358 OWW LJO P

ORDER FINDING SERVICE OF AMENDED

COMPLAINT APPROPRIATE, AND

FORWARDING SERVICE DOCUMENTS TO

PLAINTIFF

(Docs. 23 and 28) 

Plaintiff Eric Martin (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on March 1, 2004. The court has

screened plaintiff’s amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and finds that it appears to

state cognizable claims for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendants Holcolm and Gracie for

violating plaintiff’s rights under the Eighth Amendment by depriving plaintiff of water in his cell,

and defendants Aguirre and Huerta for violating plaintiff’s right of access to the courts by mailing

home plaintiff’s legal property and causing plaintiff to miss a court deadline.1 Accordingly, it is

HEREBY ORDERED that:

///

Case 1:04-cv-05358-LJO -BAM Document 29 Filed 05/12/05 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

 Although plaintiff is not proceeding in forma pauperis, the court granted his motion for service by the

Marshal on May 28, 2004. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2).

2

1. Service is appropriate for the following defendants:

CURT HOLCOLM

JIM GRACIE

R. AGUIRRE

C. HUERTA

2. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff four (4) USM-285 forms, four (4)

summonses, a Notice of Submission of Documents form, an instruction sheet and a

copy of the amended complaint filed December 27, 2004.

3. Within thirty (30) days from the date 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:

a. Completed summons;

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

c. Five (5) copies of the endorsed amended complaint filed December 27, 2004.

4. Plaintiff need not attempt service on defendants and need not request waiver of

service. Upon receipt of the above-described documents, the court will direct the

United States Marshal to serve the above-named defendants pursuant to Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 4 without payment of costs.2

5. The failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this action

be dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 12, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05358-LJO -BAM Document 29 Filed 05/12/05 Page 2 of 2