Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00865/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00865-1/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARTIN PARTIDA GAONA,

Plaintiff,

v.

KUSHNER, et.al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 06-865 OWW SMS P 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SERVICE

OF COMPLAINT (Doc. 8.) 

Martin Partida Gaona (“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 the instant action on July 10, 2006. On October 2, 2006, Plaintiff filed a

Motion requesting that the Court order service on the complaint. 

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

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 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). 

Case 1:06-cv-00865-SMS Document 10 Filed 10/24/06 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

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

contains cognizable claims for relief against the named Defendants. As the Court has yet to

screen Plaintiff’s case, his request for service is premature and unnecessary. Further, Plaintiff is

informed that the Court has hundreds of prisoner civil rights cases pending before it. As a result,

it screens Plaintiff’s the Complaints in the order in which they are filed. Plaintiff can rest assured

that should his address with the court remain current, he will receive all orders issued in his case. 

The Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. The Motion for Order of Service of Complaint is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 24, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00865-SMS Document 10 Filed 10/24/06 Page 2 of 2