Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00972/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00972-8/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

 On January 11, 2008, plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment failure-to-protect claims were dismissed from this 1

action for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; plaintiff’s retaliation claim arising from

defendant Slankard’s threat, retaliation claim arising from defendant Cribb’s destruction of a report, and retaliation

claims against defendants Alipaz and Bryant were dismissed from this action for failure to state a claim upon which

relief may be granted; plaintiff’s retaliation claim against defendant Cribb and Doe defendants arising out of the

planting of the razor blades and issuance of the Rules Violation Report was dismissed, without prejudice, as barred

by the habeas exhaustion rule; plaintiff’s claims for equitable relief were dismissed; and defendants Bryant, Cribb,

Slankard, and Alipaz were dismissed from this action for failure to state any claims upon which relief may be granted

against them. (Doc. 26.)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RUSSELL MARTIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

W. J. SULLIVAN, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-00972-OWW-GSA PC

ORDER FINDING SERVICE OF AMENDED

COMPLAINT APPROPRIATE, AND

FORWARDING SERVICE DOCUMENTS TO

PLAINTIFF FOR COMPLETION AND

RETURN WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

(Docs. 18 and 26)

Plaintiff Russell Martin (“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 June

23, 2006. The court screened plaintiff’s amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and

found that it states a cognizable claim for relief under section 1983 against defendants Uzzle and

Shiefelbien for use of excessive physical force in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Fed. R. Civ. 1

P. 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

Case 1:06-cv-00972-GMS Document 27 Filed 02/27/08 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

2

that:

1. Service is appropriate for the following defendants:

C/O UZZLE

C/O SHIEFELBIEN

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 amended complaint filed March 26, 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 amended complaint filed March 26, 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

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: February 26, 2008 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

60kij UNI 8 TED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00972-GMS Document 27 Filed 02/27/08 Page 2 of 2