Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01042/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01042-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID ANDREWS, 

Plaintiff,

v.

S. TORRES, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:12-cv-01042-GSA-PC 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

IMMEDIATE SERVICE

(Docs 3, 7.)

 David Andrews (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the instant action on

June 27, 2012. On June 27, 2012 and July 30, 2012, Plaintiff filed motions for service of process

in this action.

The court is required by law to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief

against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity, such as the instant

action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a

complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally “frivolous or

malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary

relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). 

With respect to service, the court will, sua sponte, direct the United States Marshal to

serve the complaint only after the court has screened the complaint and determined that it

1

Case 1:12-cv-01042-BAM Document 9 Filed 07/31/12 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

contains cognizable claims for relief against the named defendants. As the court has yet to

screen plaintiff’s complaint, plaintiff’s request for service is premature. 

Plaintiff is further informed that the court has hundreds of prisoner civil rights cases

pending before it and which were filed before plaintiff’s case. As a rule, the court screens the

cases in the order in which they are filed. Because of the large volume of cases, an inmate can

experience delay in resolution of his case. Plaintiff can rest assured that should his address with

the court remain current, he will receive all orders issued in his case. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for immediate service is

DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 31, 2012 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:12-cv-01042-BAM Document 9 Filed 07/31/12 Page 2 of 2