Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06313/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06313-4/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

1The “Amendment to the Complaint” included B.G. White as a named Defendant in the action. However,

in the Findings and Recommendations, the Court found that Plaintiff did not state a cognizable claim against

Defendant White and dismissed White from the action. The Court did find, however, that the original Complaint

itself stated a cognizable excessive force claim against Defendants Cardenas and Miranda. 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIE D. RANDLE,

Plaintiff,

v.

EDWARD S. ALAMEIDA,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 03 6313 REC SMS P 

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO

RESERVE DOCUMENT #17 (“ORDER

DIRECTING MARSHAL TO SERVE

PROCESS WITHOUT PREPAYMENT OF

COSTS”) 

 Willie D. Randle (“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 April 4, 2005, this Court issued Findings and Recommendations found a cognizable

excessive force claim against Defendants Cardenas and Miranda. The Court subsequently issued

an Order Directing the U.S. Marshal to serve process without the prepayment of costs. However,

it appears that the U.S. Marshal was provided only with a copy of the Amendment to the

Complaint (erroneously titled “Amended Complaint”)1 and not the original Complaint. This

prompted a Request for Clarification filed by the Defendants on June 3, 2005. Defendants state

that they only received a copy of the Amendment, however, it did not name either Cardenas or

Miranda as Defendants. 

Case 1:03-cv-06313-LJO -SMS Document 28 Filed 06/21/05 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 2One copy for each Defendant and a copy for the U.S. Marshal. 

2

In light of the above, the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to re-serve the U.S. Marshal with document

#17 (Order Directing the U.S. Marshal to Serve Process without Prepayment of

Costs) along with three copies of the Complaint (filed September 24, 2003) and

the Amendment to the Complaint (filed October 6, 2003.)2 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 21, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

b6edp0 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06313-LJO -SMS Document 28 Filed 06/21/05 Page 2 of 2