Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07385/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-07385-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HARRY J. WILLIBY,

Plaintiff,

 v.

 CITY OF OAKLAND, et al.,

Defendants. /

No. C-06-07385 EDL

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 

On January 28, 2008, Defendants filed a Motion for Summary Judgment to be heard on

March 4, 2008. On February 4, 2008, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Strike the motion for summary

judgment on the grounds that it was filed prematurely before the Court screened the First Amended

Complaint or ordered it served on Defendants under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. 

Plaintiff misunderstands the application of 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to his First Amended

Complaint. That section applies to “. . . the commencement, prosecution or defense of any suit,

action or proceeding. . . . ” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (emphasis added). Shortly after this case was filed,

Judge Armstrong, who was previously assigned to this case, granted Plaintiff’s application to

proceed in forma pauperis, after which Plaintiff’s complaint was served on Defendants by the U.S.

Marshal’s Office. Section 1915(e) further requires the Court to dismiss a case filed under that

section “at any time if the court determines that the allegation of poverty is untrue; or the action or

appeal is frivolous or malicious; fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted or seeks

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

Despite this ongoing duty, there is no requirement that the Court separately order service of an

amended complaint under the provisions of § 1915. In this case, the Court ordered that Plaintiff to

Case 3:06-cv-07385-EDL Document 76 Filed 02/11/08 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

file an amended complaint simply substituting the name of a police officer for a Doe Defendant. 

Plaintiff timely filed the First Amended Complaint, the Court accepted it for filing, Defendants

answered the First Amended Complaint and the Motion for Summary Judgment is directed at the

First Amended Complaint. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike is denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 11, 2008 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:06-cv-07385-EDL Document 76 Filed 02/11/08 Page 2 of 2