Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00861/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00861-2/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HELDA WILSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

PERKINSON, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:06-CV-00861-LJO-NEW(DLB)-P 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

NOTIFICATION OF DEFENDANTS

(Doc. 9)

 Helda Wilson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the instant action on

July 10, 2006. On November 13, 2006, plaintiff filed a motion for the court to appoint the U.S.

Marshall 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 claims that 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). 

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

Case 1:06-cv-00861-CKJ Document 14 Filed 06/13/07 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

2

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 notification of

defendants is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 12, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00861-CKJ Document 14 Filed 06/13/07 Page 2 of 2