Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01192/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-01192-1/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

 This case has been referred to the Honorable Magistrate Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo

pursuant to Local Rule 72.3, “Assignment of § 1983 Prisoner Civil Cases to United States Magistrate

Judges” and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\L\06-1192-srv.wpd -1- 06cv1192

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ANTHONY RASHAD JOHNSON

CDC #F-39513, Civil No. 06-1192 L (CAB)

Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING U.S.

MARSHAL TO EFFECT SERVICE

OF SECOND AMENDED

COMPLAINT [Doc. No. 21]

PURSUANT TO FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(2)

AND 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)

vs.

SAN DIEGO METROPOLITAN

TROLLEY SYSTEMS, et al., 

Defendants.

On June 5, 2006, Plaintiff, an inmate currently incarcerated at the Richard J. Donovan

Correctional Facility in San Diego, California, and proceeding pro se filed a civil rights

Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1

 This Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In

Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) [Doc. No. 7], but sua sponte dismissed

his Complaint for failing to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(b)(ii) &

1915A(b)(1). See September 26, 2006 Order at 6-7. However, the Court also granted Plaintiff

leave to file an Amended Complaint in order to correct the deficiencies of pleading identified

in the Court’s Order. Id. After granting Plaintiff an extension of time to file his Amended

Case 3:06-cv-01192-L-CAB Document 23 Filed 03/01/07 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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\L\06-1192-srv.wpd -2- 06cv1192

pleading, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint on October 23, 2006 [Doc. No. 16]. The

Court also sua sponte screened Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint and permitted him leave to

file a Second Amended Complaint. Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) on

January 8, 2007 [Doc. No. 21].

I. Screening per 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(b)(ii) and 1915A(b)(1)

As stated in the Court’s previous Orders, notwithstanding IFP status or the payment of

any partial filing fees, the Court must subject each civil action commenced pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(a) to mandatory screening and order the sua sponte dismissal of any case it finds

“frivolous, malicious, failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeking

monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B);

Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (“[T]he provisions of 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners.”); Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir.

2000) (en banc) (noting that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) “not only permits but requires” the court to

sua sponte dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to state a claim). 

Before its amendment by the PLRA, former 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) permitted sua sponte

dismissal of only frivolous and malicious claims. Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1130. However, as

amended, 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) mandates that the court reviewing an action filed pursuant to

the IFP provisions of section 1915 make and rule on its own motion to dismiss before directing

the U.S. Marshal to effect service pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(2). See Calhoun, 254 F.3d at

845; Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1127; see also McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F.3d 601, 604-05 (6th Cir.

1997) (stating that sua sponte screening pursuant to § 1915 should occur “before service of

process is made on the opposing parties”).

“[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); Barren, 152 F.3d at 1194

(noting that § 1915(e)(2) “parallels the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)”);

Andrews, 398 F.3d at 1121. In addition, the Court has a duty to liberally construe a pro se’s

pleadings, see Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dep’t, 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988),

Case 3:06-cv-01192-L-CAB Document 23 Filed 03/01/07 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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\L\06-1192-srv.wpd -3- 06cv1192

which is “particularly important in civil rights cases.” Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261

(9th Cir. 1992). In giving liberal interpretation to a pro se civil rights complaint, however, the

court may not “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).

Plaintiff was cautioned that any Defendants not named and all claims not re-alleged in

the Amended Complaint would be deemed to have been waived. See Nov. 29, 2006 Order at 5

(citing King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). In his Second Amended Complaint,

Plaintiff has not re-alleged any claims against the City of San Diego. Thus, this Defendant is

no longer part of this action. Moreover, it is not clear from the face of Plaintiff’s Second

Amended Complaint whether the San Diego Metropolitan Trolley Systems is a “state actor” for

purposes of § 1983 liability. Thus, this question is one that can only be resolved by further

briefing from the parties. 

Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint survives the sua

sponte screening required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b). Thus, Plaintiff is entitled

to U.S. Marshal service on his behalf. Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1126-27; 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)(2) (providing that “service be effected by a United States marshal, deputy

United States marshal, or other officer specially appointed by the court ... when the plaintiff is

authorized to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.”). 

II. Conclusion and Order

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk shall issue a summons for Defendants, provide Plaintiff with a certified

copy of both this Order and his Second Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 21], and forward them

to Plaintiff along with a blank U.S. Marshal Form 285 for each of these Defendants. Plaintiff

shall complete the Form 285s and forward them to the United States Marshal within a reasonable

amount of time such that the U.S. Marshal can timely serve the Defendants within the 120 days

provided by FED.R.CIV.P. 4(m). The U.S. Marshal shall, after receiving Plaintiff’s completed

Form 285s, serve a copy of the Second Amended Complaint, its Exhibits and summons upon

Case 3:06-cv-01192-L-CAB Document 23 Filed 03/01/07 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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\L\06-1192-srv.wpd -4- 06cv1192

Defendants as directed by Plaintiff on each U.S. Marshal Form 285. All costs of service shall

be advanced by the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(2).

2. Plaintiff shall serve upon 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 was served on Defendants, or counsel for Defendants, and the date of service.

Any paper received by the Court which has not been filed with the Clerk or which fails

to include a Certificate of Service will be disregarded.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: March 1, 2007

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

Case 3:06-cv-01192-L-CAB Document 23 Filed 03/01/07 Page 4 of 4