Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-06316/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-06316-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1981 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 

Northern District of Californi

a

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DAVID KHAN, ET. AL., 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. 

CITY OF PINOLE POLICE DEPARTMENT, ET. AL., 

Defendants.

CASE NO. 19-cv-06316-YGR 

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE 

MOTION TO ISSUE SUMMONS 

Re: Dkt. No. 31 

On January 2, 2020, pro se plaintiffs David Kahn, Nay Zar Tun Kyaw, and AK filed a 

motion captioned “Motion to issue summon.” (Dkt. No. 31.) In the filing, plaintiffs state that they 

have had difficulty serving certain defendants in this matter, and request that the Court order 

service on these defendants. (Id. at 2-3.) 

If a plaintiff has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the Court has the 

authority to order the United States Marshals Service to serve the complaint. However, the Court 

must also conduct an initial review of the complaint to determine whether it states a cognizable 

claim. See Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (“[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.” (emphasis supplied)). 

Here, Magistrate Judge Thomas S. Hixson granted plaintiffs’ in forma pauperis 

application, but expressly reserved screening of the complaint until plaintiffs could obtain 

assistance from the Federal Pro Bono Project. (Dkt. No. 5 at 1-2.) Magistrate Judge Hixson also 

stayed the matter. (Id.) It was during this stay that the case was reassigned to the Court. (Dkt. 

No. 10.) The Court, in response to plaintiff’s filings, (Dkt. Nos. 7, 12) modified the stay until 

December 3, 2019. (Dkt. No. 14 at 1.) 

Before the Court could screen the operative complaint, the defendants who had accepted 

service from plaintiffs filed several now pending motions to dismiss. (See Dkt. Nos. 16, 18, 19.) 

These motions are currently being briefed. (See Dkt. No. 32 (plaintiffs’ response to these motions 

Case 4:19-cv-06316-YGR Document 33 Filed 01/07/20 Page 1 of 2
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 

United States District Court 

Northern District of Californi

a

due January 21, 2020, and any reply from defendants due 7 days thereafter).) 

Because the Court has not yet screened the operative complaint, the Court cannot, at this 

time, grant plaintiffs’ request to order service of the complaint on the remaining unserved 

defendants. Thus, the motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Court intends to screen the 

complaint at the same time it addresses defendants’ motions to dismiss. Should the Court 

determine that plaintiffs have stated a cognizable claim, the Court will extend the date on which to 

serve the remaining defendants and order service be made on the unserved defendants through the 

United States Marshals Service. 

This Order terminates the motion at Docket Number 31. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 7, 2020 

 YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 4:19-cv-06316-YGR Document 33 Filed 01/07/20 Page 2 of 2