Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01420/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01420-4/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

3:19-cv-01420-LAB-JLB

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

PAUL SALCIDO,

CDCR #J-81054,

Plaintiff,

vs.

WARDEN PARAMO; CHIEF MEDICAL 

OFFICER; PUGA; C/O SANCHEZ; 

UNITED RENTALS ATV; SGT. 

ALVAREZ; CDCR APPEALS 

COORDINATOR; C/O CRAWFORD,

Defendants.

Case No.: 3:19-cv-01420-LAB-JLB

ORDER DIRECTING U.S. 

MARSHAL TO EFFECT SERVICE 

OF FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 

UPON DEFENDANTS PURSUANT 

TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) AND Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 4(c)(3)

I. Procedural History

Paul Salcido (“Plaintiff”), a prisoner currently incarcerated at the California Medical 

Facility (“CMF”) located in Vacaville, California, and proceeding pro se, initially filed a 

civil rights complaint (“Compl.”) pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the Eastern District of 

California. On July 29, 2019, United States Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone determined 

that the events giving rise to the claims found in Plaintiff’s Complaint occurred when he 

Case 3:19-cv-01420-TWR-DEB Document 15 Filed 04/06/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

3:19-cv-01420-LAB-JLB

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

was previously housed at the Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility (“RJD”) and 

transferred the entire action to the Southern District of California. (ECF No. 2.)

Plaintiff did not prepay the filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) to commence 

a civil action at the time he filed his Complaint; instead, he later filed a Motion to Proceed 

In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). (See ECF No. 6.)

On August 28, 2019, this Court GRANTED Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP and 

simultaneously DISMISSED his Complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief 

could be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) & 1915A. (See ECF No. 7 at 8-9.) 

Plaintiff was granted leave to file an amended pleading in order to correct the deficiencies 

of pleading identified in the Court’s Order. (See id.) Plaintiff was cautioned that 

“[d]efendants not named and any claim not re-alleged in his Amended Complaint will be 

considered waived.” (Id. citing See S.D. Cal. CivLR 15.1; Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. 

Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1989) (“[A]n amended pleading 

supersedes the original.”); Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012) 

(noting that claims dismissed with leave to amend which are not re-alleged in an amended 

pleading may be “considered waived if not repled.”).)

On January 7, 2020, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). (See ECF

No. 11.) The Court, once again, conducted the required sua sponte screening and dismissed 

all claims against Defendants Paramo, Puga, Alvarez, United Rentals AV, and CDCR 

Appeals Director for failing to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and 

§ 1915A(b). (See ECF No. 4-7.) However, the Court found that the Eighth Amendment 

claims as to Defendants Sanchez and Crawford survived the sua sponte screening required 

by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A(b). (Id. at 7.) The Court gave Plaintiff the option 

of filing a Second Amended Complaint in an attempt to cure the problems the Court found 

in Plaintiff’s pleading or proceed with his FAC as to his Eighth Amendment claims only 

and have the Court direct the United States Marshals Service (“USMS”) to effect service 

upon Defendants Sanchez and Crawford. (Id.)

Case 3:19-cv-01420-TWR-DEB Document 15 Filed 04/06/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

3:19-cv-01420-LAB-JLB

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

On March 10, 2020, Plaintiff filed a notice with the Court that it is his “intention to 

proceed with the claims against Defendants Sanchez and Crawford only.” (ECF No.14 at 

3.) Therefore, the Court will order the USMS to effect service of Plaintiff’s Complaint on 

Defendants Sanchez and Crawford only. 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.”).

II. Conclusion and Orders

For the reasons discussed, the Court:

1) DISMISSES all claims against Paramo, Puga, Alvarez, United Rentals AV, 

and CDCR Appeals Director for the reasons set forth in the Court’s January 29, 2020 Order.

2) DIRECTS the Clerk to issue a summons as to Plaintiff’s FAC (ECF No. 10) 

and forward it to Plaintiff along with a blank U.S. Marshal Form 285 for Defendants 

Sanchez and Crawford. In addition, the Clerk will provide Plaintiff with a certified copy of 

the August 28, 2019 Order granting Plaintiff IFP status, a certified copy of his FAC, and 

the summons so that he may serve Defendants Sanchez and Crawford. Upon receipt of 

this “IFP Package,” Plaintiff must complete the Form 285s as completely and accurately 

as possible, include an address where each named Defendant may be served, see S.D.CAL.

CIVLR 4.1.c, and return them to the USMS according to the instructions the Clerk provides 

in the letter accompanying his IFP package;

3) ORDERS the USMS to serve a copy of the Complaint and summons upon 

Defendants Sanchez and Crawford as directed by Plaintiff on the USM Form 285 provided 

to him. All costs of that service will be advanced by the United States. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(d); FED. R. CIV. P. 4(c)(3); and

4) ORDERS Plaintiff, after service has been effected by the U.S. Marshal, to 

serve upon Defendants or, if appearance has been entered by counsel, upon Defendants’ 

counsel, a copy of every further pleading, motion, or other document submitted for the 

Case 3:19-cv-01420-TWR-DEB Document 15 Filed 04/06/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

3:19-cv-01420-LAB-JLB

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

Court’s consideration pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 5(b). Plaintiff must include with every 

original document he seeks to file with the Clerk of the Court, a certificate stating the 

manner in which a true and correct copy of that document has been was served on 

Defendants or Defendants’ counsel, and the date of that service. See S.D. CAL. CIVLR 5.2. 

Any document received by the Court which has not been properly filed with the Clerk, or 

which fails to include a Certificate of Service upon the Defendant, may be disregarded.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 6, 2020

HON. LARRY ALAN BURNS, CHIEF JUDGE

United States District Court

Case 3:19-cv-01420-TWR-DEB Document 15 Filed 04/06/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4