Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01330/USCOURTS-casd-3_14-cv-01330-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr 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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FRANKLIN ANDRADE, JR.,

Booking #13768758, Civil No. 14cv1330 GPC (BGS)

Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING U.S.

MARSHAL TO EFFECT

SERVICE OF SECOND

AMENDED COMPLAINT

PURSUANT 

TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) 

AND FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(3)

vs.

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, et al.

Defendants.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

OnMay 29, 2014, FranklinAndrade (“Plaintiff”), a prisoner currently incarcerated

at the George Bailey Detention Facility located in San Diego, California, and proceeding

in pro se, filed a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (ECF No.1).

Plaintiff did not prepay the $350 filing fee mandated by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); instead he

filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)

(ECF No. 2). 

ThisCourt granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP butsimultaneously dismissed

his Complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. (ECF No.

3.) Plaintiff was granted leave to file an Amended Complaint in order to correct the

1 14cv1330 GPC (BGS)

Case 3:14-cv-01330-GPC-BGS Document 10 Filed 01/02/15 Page 1 of 4
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

deficienciesidentified in the Court’s Order. Id. On July 8, 2014, Plaintiff filed his First

Amended Complaint (“FAC”) (ECF No. 4). The Court, once again, found that Plaintiff

failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted (ECF No. 5). Plaintiff was

given one final opportunity to file an amended complaint. On October 27, 2014, Plaintiff

filed his Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) (ECF No. 9).

II. SCREENING PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) & 1915A(b)

As the Court stated in its previous Orders, the Prison Litigation Reform Act

(“PLRA”) 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 of the PLRA, the Court must sua sponte dismiss complaints, or any

portions thereof, which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or which seek

damagesfromdefendants 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)); Rhodes

v. Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)).

“[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 v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000); see also

Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (noting that § 1915(e)(2)

“parallelsthe language of FederalRule ofCivil Procedure 12(b)(6)”). In addition, courts

“have an obligation where the petitioner is pro se, particularly in civil rights cases, to

construe the pleadings liberally and to afford the petitioner the benefit of any doubt.”

Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Bretz v. Kelman, 773

F.2d 1026, 1027 n.1 (9th Cir. 1985)). The court may not, however, “supply essential

elements of claims that were not initially pled.” Ivey v. Board of Regents of the

University of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). “Vague and conclusory

2 14cv1330 GPC (BGS)

Case 3:14-cv-01330-GPC-BGS Document 10 Filed 01/02/15 Page 2 of 4
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

allegations of official participation in civil rights violations are not sufficient to

withstand a motion to dismiss.” 

As currently pleaded, the Court finds Plaintiff’s allegations sufficient to survive

the sua sponte screening required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b).1

See Lopez,

203 F.3d at 1126-27. Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiff is entitled to U.S. Marshal

service on his behalf. See 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)(3) (“[T]he

court may order that service be made by a United States marshal or deputy marshal ... if

the plaintiff is authorized to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.”).

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk shall issue a summons as to Plaintiff’s Second Amended

Complaint (ECF No. 9) upon Defendants and shall forward it to Plaintiff along with a

blank U.S. Marshal Form 285 for each Defendant. In addition, the Clerk shall provide

Plaintiff with a certified copy of the Order granting Plaintiff leave to proceed IFP (ECF

No. 3), a certified copy of his Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 9), and the

summons so that he may serve each named Defendant. Upon receipt of this “IFP

Package,” Plaintiff is directed to complete the Form 285s as completely and accurately

as possible, and to return them to the United States Marshal according to the instructions

provided by the Clerk in the letter accompanying his IFP package. Upon receipt, the

U.S. Marshal shall serve a copy of the Second Amended Complaint and summons upon

each Defendant as directed by Plaintiff on the USM Form 285s. All costs of service

shall be advanced by the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(3).

2. Defendants are thereafter ORDERED to reply to Plaintiff’s Second

Amended Complaint within the time provided by the applicable provisions of Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a). See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2) (while a defendant may

1 Plaintiff is cautioned that “the sua sponte screening and dismissal procedure is cumulative of,

and not a substitute for, any subsequent Rule 12[] motion that [a defendant] may choose to bring.”

Teahan v. Wilhelm, 481 F. Supp. 2d 1115, 1119 (S.D. Cal. 2007).

3 14cv1330 GPC (BGS)

Case 3:14-cv-01330-GPC-BGS Document 10 Filed 01/02/15 Page 3 of 4
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

occasionally be permitted to “waive the right to reply to any action brought by a prisoner

confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility under section 1983,” once the

Court has conducted its sua sponte screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and

§ 1915A(b), and thus, has made a preliminary determination based on the face on the

pleading alone that Plaintiff has a “reasonable opportunity to prevail on the merits,” the

defendant is required to respond). 

3. Plaintiffshall serve upon the 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 wasserved on Defendants, or counsel for

Defendants, and the date ofservice. Any paper received by the Court which has not been

filed with the Clerk or which failsto include a Certificate of Service will be disregarded.

DATED: January 2, 2015

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

4 14cv1330 GPC (BGS)

Case 3:14-cv-01330-GPC-BGS Document 10 Filed 01/02/15 Page 4 of 4