Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01180/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01180-3/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

 In a Findings and Recommendations issued concurrently with this order, the court recommended that

plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment medical care claim, supervisory liability claim against defendants Director and

Warden Scribner, claim against defendants Ortega and Mayo for concealing information, and claim against

defendant Whitlach based on her response to his inmate appeal be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which

relief may be granted under section 1983; plaintiff’s claims for declaratory and injunctive relief be dismissed as

moot; and defendants Director, Sullivan, Whitlach, Ortega, Mayo, O’Brien, and Hall be dismissed from this action

based on plaintiff’s failure to state any claims upon which relief may be granted against them.

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ISRAEL MEZA,

Plaintiff,

v.

DIRECTOR OF CALIFORNIA

DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-CV-01180-OWW-LJO-P

ORDER FINDING SERVICE OF COMPLAINT

APPROPRIATE AND FORWARDING

SERVICE DOCUMENTS TO PLAINTIFF FOR

COMPLETION AND RETURN

(Doc. 1)

Plaintiff Israel Meza (“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 September 19,

2005. The court screened plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and finds that it states

a cognizable claim for relief under section 1983 against defendants Avila, Barajas, and Bennett for

use of excessive physical force in violation of the Eighth Amendment, based on the events that

occurred on November 8, 2004.1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. 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.

Case 1:05-cv-01180-OWW -LJO Document 12 Filed 06/19/06 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

2002). Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Service is appropriate for the following defendants:

C/O AVILA

C/O BARAJAS

C/O BENNETT

2. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff three (3) USM-285 forms, three (3)

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

copy of the complaint filed September 19, 2005.

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. Four (4) copies of the endorsed complaint filed September 19, 2005. 

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

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: June 16, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01180-OWW -LJO Document 12 Filed 06/19/06 Page 2 of 2