Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02538/USCOURTS-casd-3_16-cv-02538-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

3:16-cv-2538-CAB-KSC

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN GREGORY WILLIAMS,

CDCR #AA-2822,

Plaintiff,

vs.

S. RESLER; C. HERNANDEZ; E. 

GARZA; D. SERVANTES; R. DIN; J. 

JUAREZ; G. STRATTON; H. LIU

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:16-cv-2538-CAB-KSC

ORDER DIRECTING U.S. 

MARSHAL TO EFFECT SERVICE 

OF FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 

UPON DEFENDANTS PURSUANT 

TO Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3) AND 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)

Steven Gregory Williams (“Plaintiff”), currently incarcerated at the California 

Medical Facility located in Vacaville California, and proceeding pro se, has filed a civil 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims his constitutional rights were 

violated when he was housed at the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility (“RJD”) in 

San Diego, California in 2015 and 2016. 

/ / /

/ / /

Case 3:16-cv-02538-CAB-KSC Document 7 Filed 03/06/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 5
2

3:16-cv-2538-CAB-KSC

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

I. Procedural History

On October 7, 2016, Plaintiff filed a civil rights complaint (“Compl.”) pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff did not prepay the civil filing fee required by 

28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) when he filed his Complaint; instead, he filed a Motion to Proceed In 

Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (ECF No. 2). On October 27, 

2016, this Court conducted the required sua sponte screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e) & § 1915A. (ECF No. 4.) Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP was granted and 

Plaintiff’s Complaint was dismissed for failing to state a claim upon which relief may be 

granted. See id. at 11-12. Plaintiff was given leave to file an amended pleading in order 

to correct the deficiencies of pleading identified in the Court’s Order. Id. Plaintiff filed 

his First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on December 2, 2016. (ECF No. 4.) 

II. Screening Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) & 1915A(b)

A. Standard of Review

The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) requires the Court to review 

complaints filed by all persons proceeding IFP and by those, like Plaintiff, who are 

“incarcerated or detained in any facility [and] accused of, sentenced for, or adjudicated 

delinquent for, violations of criminal law or the terms or conditions of parole, probation, 

pretrial release, or diversionary program,” “as soon as practicable after docketing.” See

28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b). Under these statutes, the Court must sua sponte 

dismiss complaints, or any portions thereof, which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a 

claim, or which seek damages from defendants who are immune. See 28 U.S.C. 

§§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A; Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en 

banc) (§ 1915(e)(2)); Rhodes v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 2010) 

(discussing 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)).

All complaints must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 

pleader is entitled to relief.” FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not 

required, but “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by 

mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) 

Case 3:16-cv-02538-CAB-KSC Document 7 Filed 03/06/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 5
3

3:16-cv-2538-CAB-KSC

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

(citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). “Determining whether 

a complaint states a plausible claim for relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires 

the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Id. The “mere 

possibility of misconduct” falls short of meeting this plausibility standard. Id.; see also 

Moss v. U.S. Secret Service, 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009).

“When there are well-pleaded factual allegations, a court should assume their veracity, 

and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Iqbal, 

556 U.S. at 679; Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000) (“[W]hen 

determining whether a complaint states a claim, a court must accept as true all allegations 

of material fact and must construe those facts in the light most favorable to the 

plaintiff.”); Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (noting that 

§ 1915(e)(2) “parallels the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)”).

In addition, the court “ha[s] an obligation where the petitioner is pro se, particularly in 

civil rights cases, to construe the pleadings liberally and to afford the petitioner the 

benefit of any doubt.” Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing 

Bretz v. Kelman, 773 F.2d 1026, 1027 n.1 (9th Cir. 1985)). However, it may not “supply 

essential elements of claims that were not initially pled.” Ivey v. Board of Regents of the 

University of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982).

Based on the allegations contained in Plaintiff’s FAC, the Court now finds Plaintiff’s 

FAC sufficient to survive the “low threshold” for proceeding past the sua sponte 

screening required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b).1 Wilhelm v. Rotman, 680 

F.3d 1113, 1123 (9th Cir. 2012); Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 103 (1976) (prison 

officials may be held liable under the Eighth Amendment if they act with deliberate 

indifference to serious medical needs); id. at 104-05 (deliberate indifference may be 

 

1 Plaintiff is cautioned that “the sua sponte screening and dismissal procedure is 

cumulative of, and not a substitute for, any subsequent Rule 12(b)(6) motion that [a 

defendant] may choose to bring.” Teahan v. Wilhelm, 481 F. Supp. 2d 1115, 1119 (S.D. 

Cal. 2007). 

Case 3:16-cv-02538-CAB-KSC Document 7 Filed 03/06/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 5
4

3:16-cv-2538-CAB-KSC

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

shown if prison officials “intentionally deny[] or delay[] access to medical care or 

intentionally interfer[e] with the treatment once prescribed.”). 

Accordingly, the Court will direct U.S. Marshal service on Plaintiff’s behalf. See

28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) (“The officers of the court shall issue and serve all process, and 

perform all duties in [IFP] cases.”); FED. R. CIV. P. 4(c)(3) (“[T]he court may order that 

service be made by a United States marshal or deputy marshal . . . if the plaintiff is 

authorized to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.”).

III. Conclusion and Order

Good cause appearing, the Court:

1. DIRECTS the Clerk of Court to issue a summons as to Plaintiff’s Amended 

Complaint (ECF Doc. No. 4) upon Defendants and forward it to Plaintiff along with a 

blank U.S. Marshal Form 285 for each of these Defendants. In addition, the Court 

DIRECTS the Clerk to provide Plaintiff with a certified copy of the October 27, 2016

Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Proceed IFP (ECF No. 3), a certified copy 

of his Amended Complaint (ECF Doc. No. 4), and the summons so that he may serve 

Defendants. Once he receives this “IFP Package,” the Court ORDERS Plaintiff to 

complete the USM Form 285s as completely and accurately as possible, and to return 

them to the United States Marshal according to the instructions provided by the Clerk in 

the letter accompanying his IFP package. 

2. ORDERS the U.S. Marshal, upon receipt of Plaintiff’s completed USM 

Form 285s, to timely serve a copy of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint and summons upon 

each Defendant as directed by Plaintiff. All costs of that service will be advanced by the 

United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); FED. R. CIV. P. 4(c)(3).

3. ORDERS Defendants, once they have been served, to reply to Plaintiff’s 

Amended Complaint within the time provided by the applicable provisions of Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a). See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2) (while a defendant may 

occasionally be permitted to “waive the right to reply to any action brought by a prisoner 

confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility under section 1983,” once the 

Case 3:16-cv-02538-CAB-KSC Document 7 Filed 03/06/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 5
5

3:16-cv-2538-CAB-KSC

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

Court has conducted its sua sponte screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and 

§ 1915A(b), and thus, has made a preliminary determination based on the face on the 

pleading alone that Plaintiff has a “reasonable opportunity to prevail on the merits,” the 

defendant is required to respond). 

4. ORDERS Plaintiff, after service has been effected by the U.S. Marshal, to 

serve upon Defendants or, if appearance has been entered by counsel, upon Defendants’ 

counsel, a copy of every further pleading, motion, or other document submitted for the 

Court’s consideration. Plaintiff must include with every original document he seeks to file 

with the Clerk of the Court, a certificate stating the manner in which a true and correct 

copy of that document has been was served on Defendants, or counsel for Defendants, and 

the date of that service.

Any document received by the Court which has not been properly filed with the Clerk 

or which fails to include a Certificate of Service upon the Defendants may be disregarded.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 6, 2017

Case 3:16-cv-02538-CAB-KSC Document 7 Filed 03/06/17 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5