Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00086/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00086-8/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

 On August 28, 2007, plaintiff’s conspiracy and due process claims were dismissed, with prejudice, for 1

failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; plaintiff’s declaratory relief claim was dismissed; and

defendants Whitlach and Cobb were dismissed from this action based on plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted against them. (Doc. 26.)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROSALIO FELIPE,

Plaintiff,

v.

T. SURGEES, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:06-cv-00086-LJO-GSA PC

ORDER FINDING SERVICE OF AMENDED

COMPLAINT APPROPRIATE, AND

FORWARDING SERVICE DOCUMENTS TO

PLAINTIFF FOR COMPLETION AND

RETURN WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

(Docs. 18 and 26)

Plaintiff Rosalio Felipe (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on January

27, 2006. The court screened plaintiff’s amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and

found that it states a cognizable claim forrelief under section 1983 against defendants Tune, Gracey,

Barns, Johnson, Carrasco, Chapman, Silva, Hartgrove, Todd, John Doe, Resendez and Bowers for

retaliation, in violation of the First Amendment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. 1

A., 534 U.S. 506, 512-15 (2002); Austin v. Terhune, 367 F.3d 1167, 1171 (9th Cir. 2004); Jackson

v. Carey, 353 F.3d 750, 754 (9th Cir. 2003); Galbraith v. County of Santa Clara, 307 F.3d 1119,

1125-26 (9th Cir. 2002). Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

Case 1:06-cv-00086-CKJ Document 28 Filed 02/27/08 Page 1 of 3
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

 The United States Marshal cannot initiate service of process on an unknown defendant. Therefore, the 2

court will send plaintiff the appropriate service documents at such time that plaintiff ascertains the identity of the

Doe defendant.

2

1. Service is appropriate for the following defendants:

2

R. TUNE, C/O 

J. GRACEY, MAINTENANCE MECHANIC 

B. BARNS, MAINTENANCE MECHANIC 

LT. R. L. JOHNSON 

CAPT. M. CARRASCO 

D. CHAPMAN, COUNSELOR

B. SILVA, C/O 

LT. G. HARTGROVE

K. TODD, CDW 

V. RESENDEZ, C/O 

BOWERS, C/O

2. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff eleven (11) USM-285 forms, eleven (11)

summonses, a Notice of Submission of Documents form, an instruction sheet and a

copy of the amended complaint filed November 27, 2006.

3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the

attached Notice of Submission of Documents and submit the completed Notice to the

court with the following documents:

a. Completed summons;

b. One completed USM-285 form for each defendant listed above; and 

c. Twelve (12) copies of the endorsed amended complaint filed November 27,

2006. 

4. Plaintiff need not attempt service on defendants and need not request waiver of

service. Upon receipt of the above-described documents, the court will direct the 

///

Case 1:06-cv-00086-CKJ Document 28 Filed 02/27/08 Page 2 of 3
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

United States Marshal to serve the above-named defendants pursuant to Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 4 without payment of costs. 

5. The failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this action

be dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 26, 2008 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

60kij UNI 8 TED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00086-CKJ Document 28 Filed 02/27/08 Page 3 of 3