Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01221/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01221-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM D. MELLO, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

 )

 v. )

 )

J. R. MARTINEZ, et al., )

 )

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

1:06-cv-01221 OWW SMS (PC) 

 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

ISSUANCE OF SUMMONSES

(DOCUMENT #9)

William D. Mello (“plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se in a civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the instant action on September 7, 2006. On June 28, 2007, plaintiff

filed a motion for the court to issue summonses and to appoint the U.S. Marshal to serve process on the

defendants.

Rule 4(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows for the issuance of a summons and

service of the complaint. Rule 4(m) sets out the time limit for service of the complaint within 120 days.

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 claimsthat 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-01221-SMS Document 10 Filed 08/09/07 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

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. Thus, the time limits set forth in Rule 4 are inapplicable

until such time as the court determines the complaint states cognizable claims for relief. As the court

has yet to screen plaintiff’s case, plaintiff’s request for service is premature and unnecessary. 

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. 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 her address with the court remain current, she will receive

all orders issued in her case. 

Accordingly, the court HEREBY ORDERS that plaintiff’s motion for issuance of summonses

is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 9, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01221-SMS Document 10 Filed 08/09/07 Page 2 of 2