Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02509/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02509-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1983 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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MARY J. CRAGO, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, 

SACRAMENTO COUNTY SHERRIFF, et 

al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:19-cv-02509 MCE AC PS 

ORDER 

 Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. This matter was accordingly referred to the 

undersigned by E.D. Cal. 302(c)(21). Plaintiff was previously granted leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis (“IFP”), though her initial complaint was rejected pursuant to the screening process 

required by the IFP statute. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1); ECF No. 4. Plaintiff submitted a First 

Amended Compliant, which was also rejected with leave to amend. ECF Nos. 5, .6. Now before 

the court is plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”). ECF No. 7. 

I. SCREENING 

 As discussed in previous orders, granting IFP status does not end the court’s inquiry, 

however. The federal IFP statute requires federal courts to dismiss a case if the action is legally 

“frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks 

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The 

Case 2:19-cv-02509-MCE-AC Document 8 Filed 03/23/20 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 

2 

court finds that, for screening purposes only, plaintiff’s claims in the SAC are sufficiently 

cognizable. Plaintiff has altered the defendants in this case, now suing Sacramento Sheriff’s 

Department Officers Lynn, Card, and Knacke. ECF No. 7 at 10. Though plaintiff lists other 

“parties” to this matter, she has already been instructed that as a pro se litigant, she cannot 

represent any party but herself, and she remains the only plaintiff in this case. Id. at 11. 

II. CONCLUSION 

 For the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2), is GRANTED. 

 2. Service is appropriate for the following defendants: 

o Sacramento Sherriff’s Officer Lynn 

o Sacramento Sherriff’s Officer Card 

o Sacramento Sherriff’s Officer Knacke 

 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to issue forthwith, and the U.S. Marshal is directed 

to serve within ninety days of the date of this order, all process pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 4, without prepayment of costs. 

 4. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff the above: one USM-285, one summons, a 

copy of the complaint, and an appropriate form for consent to trial by a magistrate judge. 

 5. Plaintiff is directed to supply the U.S. Marshal, within 15 days from the date this order 

is filed, all information needed by the Marshal to effect service of process, and shall promptly file 

a statement with the court that said documents have been submitted to the United States Marshal. 

The court anticipates that, to effect service, the U.S. Marshal will require, for each defendant in 

¶ 3, above, at least: 

 a. One completed summons; 

 b. One completed USM-285 form; 

 c. One copy of the endorsed filed complaint, with an extra copy for the U.S. 

Marshal; 

 d. One copy of the instant order; and 

 e. An appropriate form for consent to trial by a magistrate judge. 

Case 2:19-cv-02509-MCE-AC Document 8 Filed 03/23/20 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 

3 

 6. In the event the U.S. Marshal is unable, for any reason whatsoever, to effect service on 

any defendant within 90 days from the date of this order, the Marshal is directed to report that 

fact, and the reasons for it, to the undersigned. 

 7. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the U.S. Marshal, 

501 “I” Street, Sacramento, Ca., 95814, Tel. No. (916) 930-2030. 

 8. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to alter the case caption to reflect the new 

defendants in this case. 

 9. Failure to comply with this order may result in a recommendation that this action be 

dismissed. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: March 20, 2020 

Case 2:19-cv-02509-MCE-AC Document 8 Filed 03/23/20 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 

1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

MARY J. CRAGO, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

INTERNAL AFFAIRS, SACRAMENTO 

COUNTY SHERRIFF, et al, 

Defendants. 

No. 2:19-cv-02509 MCE AC PS 

NOTICE OF SUBMISSION 

 Plaintiff has submitted the following documents to the U.S. Marshal, in compliance with 

the court’s order filed _____________________: 

 ____ completed summons form 

 ____ completed USM-285 form 

 ____ copy of the complaint 

 ____ completed form to consent or decline to consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction 

____________________________________ ____________________________________ 

Date Plaintiff’s Signature 

Case 2:19-cv-02509-MCE-AC Document 8 Filed 03/23/20 Page 4 of 4