Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01087/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-01087-1/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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EUGENE HILL,

CDCR # E-59311, Civil No. 12-1087 JLS (DHB)

Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING U.S.

MARSHAL TO EFFECT SERVICE

OF FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

PURSUANT TO FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(3) 

& 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)

vs.

DOMINGO URIBE, JR.; MATTHEW

CATE; M. MASTERS; D.A. MAY;

L. CALDERON; M. GREENWOOD;

WILLIS; D. CAMARGO,

Defendants.

I.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On May 2, 2012, Plaintiff, a state prisoner currently incarcerated at Centinela State

Prison located in Imperial, California and proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff also filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

(“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), along with a Motion to Appoint Counsel. On May

8, 2012, the Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP, denied his Motion to Appoint

Counsel, and sua sponte dismissed his Complaint for failing to state a claim. (See Order,

May 8, 2012, at 4-5). On July 12, 2012, the Court accepted for filing Plaintiff’s First

Amended Complaint even though it was untimely. (ECF No. 7.)

 1 12cv1087 JLS (DHB)

Case 3:12-cv-01087-JLS-DHB Document 8 Filed 08/09/12 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

II.

SUA SPONTE SCREENING PER 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) AND § 1915A

As the Court stated in its previous Order, 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, the Court

must sua sponte dismiss any IFP or prisoner complaint, or any portion thereof, which is

frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or which seeks damages from defendants 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)); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 446 (9th

Cir. 2000) (§ 1915A).

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

sponte dismissal of only frivolous and malicious claims. Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1126, 1130. An

action is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in either law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490

U.S. 319, 324 (1989). However, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A now mandate that the

court reviewing an IFP or prisoner’s suit make and rule on its own motion to dismiss before

effecting service of the Complaint by the U.S. Marshal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 4(c)(2). Id. at 1127 (“[S]ection 1915(e) not only permits, but requires a district

court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to state a claim.”); see also Barren

v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (discussing 28 U.S.C. § 1915A).

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s claims are now sufficiently pleaded to survive the sua

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

entitled to U.S. Marshal service on his behalf. See 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)(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

 2 12cv1087 JLS (DHB)

Case 3:12-cv-01087-JLS-DHB Document 8 Filed 08/09/12 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

pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.”). Plaintiff is cautioned, however, that “the sua sponte

screening and dismissal procedure is cumulative of, and not a substitute for, any subsequent

Rule 12(b)(6) motion that [a defendant] may choose to bring.” Teahan v. Wilhelm, 481 F.

Supp. 2d 1115, 1119 (S.D. Cal. 2007).

III.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

 Good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

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

upon the Defendants and shall forward it to Plaintiff along with a blank U.S. Marshal Form

285 for each of these Defendants. In addition, the Clerk shall provide Plaintiff with a

certified copy of this Order, the Court’s Order granting Plaintiff leave to proceed IFP, and

certified copies of his First Amended Complaint and the summons for purposes of serving

each 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 U.S. Marshal

according to the instructions provided by the Clerk in the letter accompanying his IFP

package. Thereafter, the U.S. Marshal shall serve a copy of the First Amended Complaint

and summons upon each Defendant as directed by Plaintiff on each 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)(3).

2. Defendants are thereafter ORDERED to reply to Plaintiff’s First 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) (providing that while Defendants may

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,” Defendants are required to

respond). 

 3 12cv1087 JLS (DHB)

Case 3:12-cv-01087-JLS-DHB Document 8 Filed 08/09/12 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

3. 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.

DATED: August 9, 2012

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

 4 12cv1087 JLS (DHB)

Case 3:12-cv-01087-JLS-DHB Document 8 Filed 08/09/12 Page 4 of 4