Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-00824/USCOURTS-casd-3_06-cv-00824-0/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

 To the extent Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and seeks to sue federal, not state actors, for

alleged constitutional violations, the Court will construe his claims to arise under Bivens v. Six Unknown

Named Agents of the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 397 (1971) (establishing that

constitutionally protected interests may be vindicated through a suit for damages against persons action

under color of federal law by invoking the federal question jurisdiction of the U.S. courts). 

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\DMS\06-0824-SRV.wpd -1- 06cv0824

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARK A. McKENZIE

BOP #A-043-338-897,

Civil No. 06-0824 DMS (AJB)

Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING U.S.

MARSHAL TO EFFECT SERVICE

OF FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

PURSUANT TO FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(2)

AND 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)

vs.

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND

SECURITY, et al., 

Defendants.

I.

Procedural History

On April 10, 2006, Plaintiff, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) detainee

currently housed at the El Centro Service Processing Center (“SPC”), and proceeding pro se, has

submitted a civil complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1

 Plaintiff claimed that the inadequacy

of SPC’s prison law library has resulted in his inability to appeal his criminal conviction in the

California Supreme Court. (See Comp. at 1.)

Case 3:06-cv-00824-DMS-AJB Document 17 Filed 10/19/06 Page 1 of 4
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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\DMS\06-0824-SRV.wpd -2- 06cv0824

Plaintiff did not prepay the $350 filing fee mandated by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); instead, he

filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) [Doc. No.

2]. 

On May 31, 2006, this Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

(“IFP”) but sua sponte dismissed his Complaint for failing to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2). See May 31, 2006 Order at 4-5. The Court granted Plaintiff leave to file a First

Amended Complaint correcting the deficiencies of pleading noted in the Court’s Order. Id. The

Court also cautioned Plaintiff that any Defendants not named and all claims not re-alleged in the

Amended Complaint would be deemed to have been waived. Id. (citing King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d

565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987)). 

On June 29, 2006, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). Plaintiff does

not rename Defendant Department of Homeland Security in his First Amended Complaint.

Thus, Plaintiff has waived all claims against this Defendant and they are dismissed from this

action. King, 814 F.2d at 567. 

II.

Sua Sponte Screening per 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)

Any complaint filed by a person proceeding IFP is subject to sua sponte dismissal to the

extent it contains claims which are “frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief

may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(e)(2)(B); Calhoun v. Stahl, 254 F.3d 845, 845 (9th Cir. 2001) (per curiam) (holding that

“the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) are not limited to prisoners.”); 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.”). 

“[W]hen determining whether a complaint states a claim, a court must accept as true all

allegations of material fact and must construe those facts in the light most favorable to the

plaintiff.” Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000); see also Barren v. Harrington,

152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (§ 1915(e)(2) “parallels the language of Federal Rule of 

Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).”). However, while liberal construction is “particularly important in

Case 3:06-cv-00824-DMS-AJB Document 17 Filed 10/19/06 Page 2 of 4
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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\DMS\06-0824-SRV.wpd -3- 06cv0824

civil rights cases,” Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1261 (9th Cir. 1992), the Court may not

“supply essential elements of the claim that were not initially pled.” Ivey v. Board of Regents

of the University of Alaska, 673 F.2d 266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). The district court should grant

leave to amend, however, unless it determines that “the pleading could not possibly be cured by

the allegation of other facts” and if it appears “at all possible that the plaintiff can correct the

defect.” Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1130-31.

Here, the Court finds that the First Amended Complaint survives the sua sponte screening

required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), and that Plaintiff is therefore automatically entitled to U.S.

Marshal service on his behalf. See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1126-27; 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)(2) (providing that “service be effected by a United States marshal, deputy

United States marshal, or other officer specially appointed by the court . . . when the plaintiff is

authorized to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.”).

III.

Conclusion and Order

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The United States Marshal shall serve a copy of the First Amended Complaint

and summons upon Defendants Gonzales, Willis, Magee, Haley and V. Gonzales as directed

by Plaintiff on U.S. Marshal Form 285. All costs of service shall be advanced by the United

States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(2).

2. Defendants thereafter ORDERED to reply to the First Amended Complaint within

the time provided by the applicable provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a). See 42

U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2) (while Defendants may occasionally be permitted to “waive the right to

reply to any action brought by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional

facility under section 1983,” once the Court has conducted its sua sponte screening pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), and thus, has made a preliminary determination based on the face on the

pleading alone that Plaintiff has a “reasonable opportunity to prevail on the merits,” Defendants

are required to respond). 

Case 3:06-cv-00824-DMS-AJB Document 17 Filed 10/19/06 Page 3 of 4
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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\DMS\06-0824-SRV.wpd -4- 06cv0824

3. Plaintiff shall serve upon Defendants or, if appearance has been entered by

counsel, upon Defendants’ counsel, a copy of every further pleading or other document

submitted for consideration of the Court. Plaintiff shall include with the original paper to be

filed with the Clerk of the Court a certificate stating the manner in which a true and correct copy

of any document was served on Defendants, or counsel for Defendants, and the date of service.

Any paper received by the Court which has not been filed with the Clerk or which fails to

include a Certificate of Service will be disregarded.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: October 19, 2006

DANA M. SABRAW

United States District Judge

cc: all parties

Judge Battaglia

Case 3:06-cv-00824-DMS-AJB Document 17 Filed 10/19/06 Page 4 of 4