Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00122/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00122-8/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ADONAI EL SHADDAI a.k.a. WILKERSON,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-0122 DFL CMK P

vs.

JEANNE WOODFORD, et al., 

Defendants.

 / ORDER

Plaintiff’s complaint was removed to this court by defendants. On plaintiff’s

original complaint (doc. 2, Ex. A.), he listed as defendants Jeanne Woodford and D.L. Runnels. 

The court assumed that both defendants had been served with the state court complaint. 

Pursuant to federal statute, the court screened plaintiff’s original complaint,

dismissed it, and ordered plaintiff to file an amended complaint. Plaintiff did so on July 28,

2006. After screening the amended complaint, the court determined that service was appropriate

for defendants Woodford and Runnels, the two defendants named in the original complaint. The

court ordered that defendants (who the court assumed had already been served) reply to the

amended complaint. 

On October 18, 2006, defendant Woodford filed an answer. In her answer, she

noted that the answer was not made on behalf of defendant Runnels or any other unserved

Case 2:06-cv-00122-RRB-CMK Document 29 Filed 10/30/06 Page 1 of 3
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

Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis in this court was granted on July 17, 1

2006 (doc. 20). 

2

defendant. (Doc. 25.) Inquiry of defendant Woodford’s counsel reveals that, due to very specific

requirements of the Sheriff, who is responsible for serving state court complaints, defendant

Runnels may have never been served. Accordingly, the court will order service of defendant

Runnels by the United States Marshal Service. 

1

1. The court has found that service is appropriate for defendant D.L.Runnels 

2. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff one USM-285 forms, one summons,

an instruction sheet and a copy of the complaint filed July 28, 2006.

3. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the

attached Notice of Submission of Documents and submit the following documents to the court:

a. The completed Notice of Submission of Documents;

b. One completed summons;

c. One completed USM-285 form for defendant Runnels

d. two copies of the endorsed complaint filed July 28, 2006. 

4. Plaintiff need not attempt service on defendant Runnels 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. 

DATED: October 25, 2006.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00122-RRB-CMK Document 29 Filed 10/30/06 Page 2 of 3
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff, No. CIV 

vs.

 NOTICE OF SUBMISSION

Defendants. OF DOCUMENTS

 /

Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with the court's

order filed :

 completed summons form

 completed USM-285 forms

 copies of the 

 Complaint/Amended Complaint

DATED: 

 

Plaintiff

Case 2:06-cv-00122-RRB-CMK Document 29 Filed 10/30/06 Page 3 of 3