Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00128/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00128-4/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

 In a Findings and Recommendations issued concurrently with this order, the court recommended that 1

plaintiff’s equal protection claim, First Amendment claim, defamation claim, due process claims except for the

excessive force claim against Stancliff, denial of access to the courts claim, and claim against Kern County and the

Kern County Sheriff’s Department be dismissed, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under

section 1983; and defendants Kern County, the Kern County Sheriff’s Department, former Sheriff Carl Sparks,

Officer Lindini, the John Doe Deputy, and the John Doe Sergeant 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

ANTHONY JOSEPH SANCHEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

STANCLIFF, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:07-cv-00128-LJO-SMS PC

ORDER FINDING SERVICE OF COMPLAINT

APPROPRIATE, AND FORWARDING

SERVICE DOCUMENTS TO PLAINTIFF FOR

COMPLETION AND RETURN WITHIN

THIRTY DAYS

(Doc. 1)

Plaintiff Anthony Joseph Sanchez (“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 23, 2007. 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 defendant Stancliff for use of

excessive physical force, in violation of the Due Process Clause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); Swierkiewicz 1

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. 2002). Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

Case 1:07-cv-00128-LJO -SMS Document 16 Filed 08/02/07 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

1. Service is appropriate for the following defendant:

OFFICER STANCLIFF

2. The Clerk of the Courtshall send plaintiff one (1) USM-285 form, one (1) summons,

a Notice of Submission of Documents form, an instruction sheet and a copy of the

complaint filed January 23, 2007.

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. Completed USM-285 form; and 

c. Two (2) copies of the endorsed complaint filed January 23, 2007. 

4. Plaintiff need not attempt service on defendant 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 defendant 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: August 1, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00128-LJO -SMS Document 16 Filed 08/02/07 Page 2 of 2