Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00958/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00958-1/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

S:\Lorenz\orders\07cv0958_ServeSAC.wpd. -1- 07cv0958

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AUGUSTUS NELSON,

CDCR #C-66719,

Civil No. 07-0958 L (RBB)

Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING U.S.

MARSHAL TO EFFECT SERVICE

OF SECOND AMENDED

COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO FED.

R. CIV. P. 4(c)(2) AND 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(d)

 vs.

VICTOR ALMAGER, Warden;

LORENZO CALDERON, Correctional

Captain; RAMON RENTERIA,

Correctional Counselor; JOHN M.

SOUKUP, Chief Disciplinary Officer; P.W.

DAUGHTERY, Staff Service Analyst,

R.W. FOX, Correctional Lieutenant,

ARMANDO FAVILA, Associate Warden,

JAMES TILTON, Secretary of CDCR, 

J. STOCKER, Appeals Examiner, 

Defendants.

 

I. Procedural History

On May 24, 2007, Plaintiff, a state prisoner currently incarcerated at the California

Substance Abuse Treatment Facility in Corcoran, California, and proceeding pro se, filed a civil

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed In

Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) but sua sponte dismissed his Complaint for failing to state a claim upon

Case 3:07-cv-00958-L-RBB Document 20 Filed 07/07/08 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

S:\Lorenz\orders\07cv0958_ServeSAC.wpd. -2- 07cv0958

which relief could be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b). (See July 2,

2007 Order at 5-6.) Plaintiff was granted leave to file a First Amended Complaint in order to

be able to correct the deficiencies of pleading identified by the Court in its Order. (Id. at 6.)

After granting Plaintiff an extension of time, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint

(“FAC”) on October 4, 2007. The Court, once again, dismissed Plaintiff’s First Amended

Complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and permitted him one

final opportunity to correct the deficiencies of pleading identified in the Court’s Order. (See Jan.

10, 2008 Order at 4-5.) Subsequently, the Court granted Plaintiff an extension of time to file

an Amended Complaint. (See Jan. 30, 2008 Order at 1.) Plaintiff filed his Second Amended

Complaint (“SAC”) on April 25, 2008.

II. Sua Sponte Screening per 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A

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

Court to review complaints filed by all persons proceeding IFP and 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, the Court must sua sponte dismiss

prisoner and all other IFP 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)); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 446 (9th Cir. 2000) (§ 1915A).

Before amendment by the PLRA, the former 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) permitted sua sponte

dismissal of only frivolous and malicious claims. Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1126, 1130. However 28

U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A now mandate that the court reviewing an IFP or prisoner’s suit

make and rule on its own motion to dismiss before directing that the Complaint be served by the

U.S. Marshal pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(2). Id. at 1127 (“[S]ection 1915(e) not only permits,

but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to state a

claim.”); see also Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (discussing

§ 1915A).

Case 3:07-cv-00958-L-RBB Document 20 Filed 07/07/08 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

S:\Lorenz\orders\07cv0958_ServeSAC.wpd. -3- 07cv0958

“[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, 213 F.3d at 447; Barren, 152 F.3d at 1194 (noting that § 1915(e)(2)

“parallels the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)”). 

Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment due process claims in his

Second Amended Complaint survive the sua sponte screening required by 28 U.S.C. §§

1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b), and that Plaintiff is therefore automatically entitled to U.S. Marshal

service on his behalf. See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1126-27; 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)(2) (providing that “service be effected by a United States marshal, deputy Untied States

marshal, or other officer specially appointed by the court . . . when the plaintiff is authorized to

proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915.”). Plaintiff is cautioned, however, that

“the sua sponte screening and dismissal procedure is cumulative of, and not a substitute for, any

subsequent Rule 12(b)(6) motion that [a defendant] may choose to bring.” Teahan v. Wilhelm,

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

III. Conclusion and Order

Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The United States Marshal shall serve a copy of the Second Amended Complaint

and summons upon Defendants as directed by Plaintiff on U.S. Marshal Form 285. All costs of

service shall be advanced by the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(2).

2. Defendants are thereafter ORDERED to reply to the 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 Defendants 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,” Defendants are required to respond). 

Case 3:07-cv-00958-L-RBB Document 20 Filed 07/07/08 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

S:\Lorenz\orders\07cv0958_ServeSAC.wpd. -4- 07cv0958

3. Plaintiff shall serve upon 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.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 7, 2008

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00958-L-RBB Document 20 Filed 07/07/08 Page 4 of 4