Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02912/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02912-5/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES CHATMAN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-2912 LKK EFB P

vs.

TOM FELKER, Warden, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42

U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s has filed a motion for reconsideration of the order filed April 29,

2009, in which the court found that plaintiff stated claims against some defendants but not

against others. Plaintiff points out that the screening order did not address two of the many

claims asserted in the April 18, 2008, amended complaint. One is a claim that when plaintiff

was using crutches and had one arm in a sling, R. Rath allegedly used brute force to push

plaintiff into a wall in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The other is a claim that J. Stiles

falsely stated on official documents that plaintiff had given away property that in fact had been

stolen in order to retaliate against plaintiff for the exercise of his First Amendment rights. The

court has reviewed these two claims and finds that, for the limited purposes of § 1915A

screening, they each state a claim. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). 

Case 2:06-cv-02912-RCJ Document 24 Filed 06/10/09 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

1

 The court already has provided plaintiff with a copy of the amended pleading and

instructions for service of process. Dckt. 16.

2

Accordingly, it hereby is ordered that:

1. Plaintiff's May 13, 2009, motion for reconsideration is granted.

2. Because service of R. Rath and J. Stiles on the above-mentioned claims does not

materially alter plaintiff’s obligations under the April 29, 2009, order, that order remains in

effect. 

3. Service is appropriate for defendants R. Rath and J. Stiles.

4. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff two USM-285 forms and one summons.1

5. Within 20 days from service of this order, plaintiff shall complete the attached Notice

of Submission of Documents and submit it to the court with the completed summons and USM285 forms and two copies of the endorsed April 18, 2008, pleading.

6. Upon receipt of the necessary materials, the court will direct the United States

Marshal to serve defendants R. Rath and J. Stiles pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4

without payment of costs. Failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that

claims against these defendants be dismissed. 

Dated: June 10, 2009.

Case 2:06-cv-02912-RCJ Document 24 Filed 06/10/09 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

3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHARLES CHATMAN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-2912 LKK EFB P

vs.

TOM FELKER, Warden, et al.,

Defendants. NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS

 /

Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with the court's order

filed :

 1 completed summons form

 2 completed forms USM-285 

 2 copies of the April 18, 2008 

 First Amended Complaint

Dated: 

 

 Plaintiff

Case 2:06-cv-02912-RCJ Document 24 Filed 06/10/09 Page 3 of 3