Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06835/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06835-5/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

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

plaintiff’s supervisory liability claim against defendant Doe 3, the warden, be dismissed from this action for failure

to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BYRON G. MARTIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF CALIFORNIA

DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:03-cv-06835-LJO-NEW (DLB) PC

ORDER FINDING SERVICE OF SECOND

AMENDED COMPLAINT APPROPRIATE,

AND FORWARDING SERVICE

DOCUMENTS TO PLAINTIFF FOR

COMPLETION AND RETURN WITHIN

THIRTY DAYS

(Doc. 20)

Plaintiff Byron G. Martin (“plaintiff”) is a 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 November 14,

2003. The court has screened plaintiff’s second amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A

and finds that it states cognizable claims for relief under section 1983 against defendant Padilla aka

Doe 1 for use of excessive physical force in violation of the Eighth Amendment, against defendant

Rauh aka Doe 2 for failure to protect plaintiff from harm in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and

against defendant Doe 4 for denial of procedural due process in violation of the Fourteenth

Amendment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 512-15 (2002); 1

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). 

Case 1:03-cv-06835-LJO -GSA Document 35 Filed 05/02/07 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 When plaintiff ascertains the identity of Doe 4, the hearing officer, he may notify the court and it will 2

direct the Marshal to initiate service of process.

2

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Service is appropriate for the following defendants:

2

C/O RAUH AKA DOE 1

C/O PADILLA AKA DOE 2

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 second amended complaint filed August 12, 2005.

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 second amended complaint filed August 12,

2005. 

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. 

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

be dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 2, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

i0d3h8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06835-LJO -GSA Document 35 Filed 05/02/07 Page 2 of 2