Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01292/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01292-6/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 May 11, 2007, plaintiff’s due process claim based on the deprivation of his property was dismissed, 1

with prejudice, for failure to state a claim, and defendants Cobbs, Martinez, Wadkins, and Prud’homme were

dismissed from this action based on plaintiff’s failure to state any claims against them. (Doc. 16.)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARIUS SIMS,

Plaintiff,

v.

T. BAKER, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-cv-01292-AWI-SMS PC

ORDER FINDING SERVICE OF SECOND

AMENDED COMPLAINT APPROPRIATE,

AND FORWARDING SERVICE

DOCUMENTS TO PLAINTIFF FOR

COMPLETION AND RETURN WITHIN

THIRTY DAYS

(Docs. 11 and 16)

Plaintiff Darius Sims (“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 October 13,

2005. The court screened plaintiff’s second amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and

found that it states a cognizable claim against defendants Resa, Baker, and Doe under section 1983

for acting with deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s safety, in violation of the Eighth Amendment.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. 2002). Accordingly, it is HEREBY

ORDERED that:

Case 1:05-cv-01292-AWI -SMS Document 19 Filed 05/17/07 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 The United States Marshal cannot initiate service of process on a doe defendant. Plaintiff will be issued a

2

summons and USM-285 form for defendant Doe when and if he ascertains Doe’s name.

2

1. Service is appropriate for the following defendants:

2

C/O R. RESA

C/O T. BAKER

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

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

copy of the second complaint filed July 10, 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. Three (3) copies of the endorsed second amended complaint filed July 10,

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

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: May 16, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

i0d3h8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01292-AWI -SMS Document 19 Filed 05/17/07 Page 2 of 2