Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06011/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06011-0/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RICHARD K. JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

C/O BAKEWELL,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 04 6011 REC SMS 

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR SERVICE

ON DEFENDANTS 

(Doc. 19-1) 

 Richard K. Johnson (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On November 9, 2005, Plaintiff filed a “Request for Service on the Defendants” in which

he asks the Court to issue the appropriate documents for the U.S. Marshal to serve the

Defendants. Plaintiff cites to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as evidence that the U.S.

Marshal is to serve the Complaint within a certain period of time. 

The instant action is governed by the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”). Under the

PLRA, the court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 

Plaintiff was informed in the First Informational Order that an Order directing service would

issue only after the Court had made a preliminary determination that the Complaint stated a claim

for relief. The Court’s screening function has yet to occur in the instant case. Plaintiff can rest

assured that the Court is fully aware of the existence of his case. However, as the Court has

Case 1:04-cv-06011-REC -SMS Document 20 Filed 11/18/05 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

2

before it hundreds of similar cases at any given time, some delay in processing the case is to be

expected. Generally, the Court proceeds with the screening of the case in the order it was filed. 

Plaintiff should keep the Court apprised of his current address should it change so as to receive

all Order related to his case that might issue. The Court will proceed with Plaintiffs case in due

course. 

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. The Request for Service is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 16, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06011-REC -SMS Document 20 Filed 11/18/05 Page 2 of 2