Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01461/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01461-3/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

ANTHONY RICARDO TURNER,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-07-1461 GEB DAD P

vs.

ED PRIETO, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42

U.S.C. § 1983. On October 10, 2007, this court found that plaintiff’s original complaint

appeared to state cognizable claims for relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(b) and ordered plaintiff to complete and submit the necessary documents for service of

defendants Prieto, Austin, and Cooper. On October 23, 2007, plaintiff returned the necessary

documents for service, and on November 2, 2007, the court ordered the United States Marshal to

notify defendants of the commencement of this action and request a waiver of service of

summons. 

However, on November 13, 2007, plaintiff filed an amended complaint. Upon

preliminary review, the amended complaint appears to suffer from a number of defects. For

example, the amended complaint names at least ten additional defendants, including defendant

Case 2:07-cv-01461-DAD Document 20 Filed 02/22/08 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

2

Prieto, but not defendants Austin and Cooper. The amended complaint also contains a series of

allegations that fail to identify with any degree of particularity overt acts which defendants

engaged in that support plaintiff’s claims. Finally, the amended complaint contains new

allegations about events that have occurred after plaintiff commenced this action that appear to

give rise to unexhausted claims. 

On January 22, 2008, plaintiff filed a letter informing the court that defendant

Austin’s first-name initial is “R” and that defendant Cooper’s name is actually Hooper. Plaintiff

also submitted a new summons, a USM-285 form for defendant Hooper, and copies of his

original complaint. 

In light of plaintiff’s recent filings, the court will order plaintiff to file a

declaration clarifying whether he wishes to proceed on his original complaint or his amended

complaint. If plaintiff wishes to proceed on his original complaint, the United States Marshal

will be allowed to complete service, and defendants will be expected to respond to plaintiff’s

allegations in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. If plaintiff wishes to

proceed with his amended complaint, the court will vacate its previous service order and will

formally screen plaintiff’s amended complaint at a later date. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within fifteen days

of the date of this order, plaintiff shall file a declaration informing the court of whether he wishes

to proceed on his original complaint or his amended complaint.

DATED: February 22, 2008.

DAD:9

turn1461.dec

Case 2:07-cv-01461-DAD Document 20 Filed 02/22/08 Page 2 of 2