Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00174/USCOURTS-casd-3_15-cv-00174-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983pr 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAMUEL EDWARDS, 

CDCR #F-55903, Civil

No. 15cv0174 LAB (JMA)

Plaintiff, ORDER:

(1) DISMISSING

DEFENDANT; AND

(2) DIRECTING U.S.

MARSHAL TO EFFECT

SERVICE OF SECOND

AMENDED COMPLAINT

PURSUANT TO 

FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(3) & 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)

vs.

CDCR, et al.,

Defendants.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On January 26, 2015, Samuel Edwards (“Plaintiff”), a prisoner currently

incarcerated at Centinela State Prison located in Imperial, California, and proceeding in

pro se, filed a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 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) (ECF Nos. 4, 6). 

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\15cv0174-Serve SAC.wpd 1 15cv0174 LAB (JMA)

Case 3:15-cv-00174-LAB-JMA Document 13 Filed 07/02/15 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

This Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP but simultaneously dismissed

his Complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. (ECF No.

7.) 

Plaintiff was granted leave to file an Amended Complaint in order to correct the

deficiencies identified in the Court’s Order. Id. On April 23, 2015, Plaintiff filed his

First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). (ECF No. 8.) Once again, this Court dismissed

Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief could

be granted. Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) on June 26, 2015. 

(ECF No. 10.) In this pleading, Plaintiff no longer names the CDCR as a Defendant. 

Therefore, the claims against the CDCR are dismissed and the Clerk of Court is directed

to terminate this Defendant from the docket. See King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th

Cir. 1987) (citation omitted) (“All causes of action alleged in an original complaint which

are not alleged in an amended complaint are waived.”). 

II. SCREENING PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) & 1915A(b)

As the Court stated in its previous Orders, the Prison Litigation Reform Act

(“PLRA”) obligates the Court to review complaints filed by all persons proceeding IFP

and by those, like Plaintiff, who are “incarcerated or detained in any facility [and] accused

of, sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for, violations of criminal law or the terms or

conditions of parole, probation, pretrial release, or diversionary program,” “as soon as

practicable after docketing.” See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b). Under these

provisions of the PLRA, the Court must sua sponte dismiss complaints, or any portions

thereof, which are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim, or which seek damages from

defendants who are immune. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A; Lopez v. Smith,

203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (§ 1915(e)(2)); Rhodes v. Robinson, 621

F.3d 1002, 1004 (9th Cir. 2010) (discussing 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)).

“[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.

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\15cv0174-Serve SAC.wpd 2 15cv0174 LAB (JMA)

Case 3:15-cv-00174-LAB-JMA Document 13 Filed 07/02/15 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

Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (noting that § 1915(e)(2) “parallels the

language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)”). In addition, courts “have an

obligation where the petitioner is pro se, particularly in civil rights cases, to construe the

pleadings liberally and to afford the petitioner the benefit of any doubt.” Hebbe v. Pliler,

627 F.3d 338, 342 & n.7 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing Bretz v. Kelman, 773 F.2d 1026, 1027 n.1

(9th Cir. 1985)). The court may not, however, “supply essential elements of claims that

were not initially pled.” Ivey v. Board of Regents of the University of Alaska, 673 F.2d

266, 268 (9th Cir. 1982). “Vague and conclusory allegations of official participation in

civil rights violations are not sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss.” 

As currently pleaded, the Court finds Plaintiff’s allegations in his SAC sufficient

to survive the sua sponte screening required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b).1

See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1126-27. Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiff is entitled to U.S.

Marshal service on his behalf. See 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)(3)

(“[T]he court may order that service be made by a United States marshal or deputy

marshal ... if the plaintiff is authorized to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915.”).

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

 Good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk shall issue a summons as to Plaintiff’s Second Amended

Complaint (ECF No. 10) upon Defendants and shall and forward it to Plaintiff along with

a blank U.S. Marshal Form 285 for each Defendant. In addition, the Clerk shall provide

Plaintiff with a certified copy of the Order granting Plaintiff leave to proceed IFP (ECF

No. 7), a certified copy of his Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 10) and Exhibits 

(ECF No. 12), and the summons so that he may serve each named Defendant. Upon

receipt of this “IFP Package,” Plaintiff is directed to complete the Form 285s as

1

 Plaintiff is cautioned that “the sua sponte screening and dismissal procedure is cumulative of,

and not a substitute for, any subsequent Rule 12[] motion that [a defendant] may choose to bring.” 

Teahan v. Wilhelm, 481 F. Supp. 2d 1115, 1119 (S.D. Cal. 2007).

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\15cv0174-Serve SAC.wpd 3 15cv0174 LAB (JMA)

Case 3:15-cv-00174-LAB-JMA Document 13 Filed 07/02/15 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

completely and accurately as possible, and to return them to the United States Marshal

according to the instructions provided by the Clerk in the letter accompanying his IFP

package. Upon receipt, the U.S. Marshal shall serve a copy of the Second Amended

Complaint and summons upon each Defendant as directed by Plaintiff on the USM Form

285s. All costs of service shall be advanced by the United States. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(d); FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(3).

2. Defendants are thereafter ORDERED to reply to Plaintiff’s Second

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 a defendant 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

§ 1915A(b), 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,” the

defendant is required to respond). 

3. Plaintiff shall serve upon the 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.

DATED: July 2, 2015

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

I:\Everyone\_EFILE-PROSE\LAB\15cv0174-Serve SAC.wpd 4 15cv0174 LAB (JMA)

Case 3:15-cv-00174-LAB-JMA Document 13 Filed 07/02/15 Page 4 of 4