Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00114/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00114-0/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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\IEG\07-0114-fac.wpd -1- 07cv0114

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSE LUIS DIPARRA,

CDC #J-95995, Civil No. 07-0114 IEG (POR)

Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING U.S.

MARSHAL TO EFFECT SERVICE

OF SUMMONS AND FIRST

AMENDED COMPLAINT

PURSUANT TO FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(2) 

AND 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) 

vs.

PAROLE COMMUNITY SERVICES, et

al., 

Defendants.

On January 16, 2007, Plaintiff, a former state prisoner who was incarcerated at the

California Rehabilitation Center in Norco, California and proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights

Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, along with a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

(“IFP”) [Doc. No. 2]. The Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP but sua sponte

dismissed his Complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and for

seeking monetary damages against immune defendants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). See

February 7, 2007 Order at 6-7. Plaintiff was granted permission to file an amended complaint

correcting the deficiencies of pleading identified by the Court in its Order. Id. On March 23,

2007, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) [Doc. No. 4].

////

////

Case 3:07-cv-00114-IEG-POR Document 6 Filed 05/01/07 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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\IEG\07-0114-fac.wpd -2- 07cv0114

I. Sua Sponte Screening per 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A

The PLRA also obligates 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

provisions, the Court must sua sponte dismiss any prisoner and all other IFP 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)); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d

443, 446 (9th Cir. 2000) (§ 1915A); see also Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th

Cir. 1998) (discussing § 1915A). “[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.” Resnick, 213 F.3d at 447; Barren, 152 F.3d at 1194 (noting that

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

Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint survives the sua sponte

screening required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b) to the extent that he is seeking

injunctive relief in the form of a new parole eligibility review. See Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544

U.S. 74, 78 (2005). Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to U.S. Marshal service on his behalf.

Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1126-27; 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)(2) (providing that

“service be effected by a United States marshal, deputy United States marshal, or other officer

specially appointed by the court ... when the plaintiff is authorized to proceed in forma pauperis

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.”). 

III. Conclusion and Order

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk shall issue a summons for Defendants, provide Plaintiff with a certified

copy of both this Order and his Complaint [Doc. No. 1], and forward them to Plaintiff along with

Case 3:07-cv-00114-IEG-POR Document 6 Filed 05/01/07 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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\IEG\07-0114-fac.wpd -3- 07cv0114

a blank U.S. Marshal Form 285 for each of these Defendants. Plaintiff shall complete the Form

285s and forward them to the United States Marshal within a reasonable amount of time such

that the U.S. Marshal can timely serve the Defendants within the 120 days provided by

FED.R.CIV.P. 4(m). The U.S. Marshal shall, after receiving Plaintiff’s completed Form 285s,

serve a copy of the Complaint, its Exhibits and summons upon Defendants as directed by

Plaintiff on each U.S. Marshal Form 285. All costs of service shall be advanced by the United

States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(2).

2. Plaintiff shall serve upon Defendants or, if appearance has been entered by

counsel, upon Defendants’ counsel, a copy of every further pleading or other document

submitted for consideration of the Court. Plaintiff shall include with the original paper to be

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

of any document was served on Defendants, or counsel for Defendants, and the date of service.

Any paper received by the Court which has not been filed with the Clerk or which fails

to include a Certificate of Service will be disregarded.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: May 1, 2007

HON. IRMA E. GONZALEZ, Chief Judge

United States District Court

Southern District of California

Case 3:07-cv-00114-IEG-POR Document 6 Filed 05/01/07 Page 3 of 3