Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01401/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-01401-5/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

CHRISTOPHER S. RIDER,

Plaintiff,

v.

YATES et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:07-cv-01401-LJO DLB PC

ORDER FINDING SERVICE OF COMPLAINT

APPROPRIATE AND FORWARDING

SERVICE DOCUMENTS TO PLAINTIFF FOR

COMPLETION AND RETURN WITHIN

THIRTY DAYS

(Doc. 1)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

(Doc. 16)

Plaintiff Christopher S. Rider (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

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

September 14, 2007. 

I. Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Judgment

On February 28, 2008, plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment (Doc. 16). Plaintiff’s

motion is premature.

By order filed October 15, 2007, plaintiff was advised that 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). Further, plaintiff was advised that the court will

direct the United States Marshal to serve the complaint only after it has determined that the

complaint contains cognizable claims for relief against the named defendants; and that the court has

not yet screened plaintiff’s complaint, but will do so in due course. Despite the court’s explanation

Case 1:07-cv-01401-LJO-DLB Document 19 Filed 06/06/08 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

27

28

 In a Findings and Recommendations issued concurrently with this order, the court recommended that 1

plaintiff’s claims against defendants Warden Yates and N. Grannis be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted. 

2

of the procedure that will govern this action, plaintiff filed a motion seeking default judgment against

defendants. Defendants have not yet been served and plaintiff’s motion is premature. Therefore,

plaintiff’s motion for default judgment is HEREBY DENIED.

II. Screening Requirement

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

states cognizable claims for relief as against defendants J.L. Scott and N. Greene. Fed. R. Civ. P. 1

8(a); Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 512-15 (2002); Austin v. Terhune, 367 F.3d

1167, 1171 (9th Cir. 2004); Jackson v.Carey, 353 F.3d 750, 754 (9th Cir. 2003); Galbraith v. County

of Santa Clara, 307 F.3d 1119, 1125-26 (9th Cir. 2002). Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED

that:

1. Service is appropriate for the following defendants:

SERGEANT N. GREENE

LIEUTENANT J.L. SCOTT

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

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

copy of the complaint filed September 14, 2007.

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. Three (3) copies of the endorsed complaint filed September 14, 2007. 

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

Case 1:07-cv-01401-LJO-DLB Document 19 Filed 06/06/08 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

27

28

3

of Civil Procedure 4 without payment of costs. 

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

be dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 5, 2008 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

d274kd UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-01401-LJO-DLB Document 19 Filed 06/06/08 Page 3 of 3