Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00517/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-00517-0/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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\BEN\07-0517-fac.wpd -1- 07cv0517

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CAMERON CHARLES SEAHOLM,

CDC #E-40258, Civil No. 07-0517 BEN (WMc)

Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING U.S.

MARSHAL TO EFFECT SERVICE

OF SUMMONS AND FIRST

AMENDED COMPLAINT

PURSUANT TO FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(2) 

AND 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) 

vs.

H. ASBURY; A. MORENO; E.

MARRERO; R. HERNANDEZ, 

Defendants.

On March 21, 2007, Plaintiff, a state inmate currently incarcerated at the California

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

rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff later filed a Motion to Proceed In

Forma Pauperis (“IFP”) [Doc. No. 3]. The Court granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Proceed IFP but

sua sponte dismissed his Complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief could be

granted. See May 23, 2007 Order at 6-7. Plaintiff was granted permission to file an amended

complaint correcting the deficiencies of pleading identified by the Court in its Order. Id. On

June 6, 2007, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) [Doc. No. 5].

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

The Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) obligates the Court to review complaints

filed by all persons proceeding IFP and by those, like Plaintiff, who are “incarcerated or detained

Case 3:07-cv-00517-BEN-WMC Document 6 Filed 06/28/07 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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\BEN\07-0517-fac.wpd -2- 07cv0517

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 any 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); see also Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d

1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998) (discussing § 1915A). “[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 First Amended Complaint survives the sua sponte

screening required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b) to the extent that he may be

seeking injunctive relief in the form of a new parole eligibility review. See Wilkinson v. Dotson,

544 U.S. 74, 78 (2005). Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to U.S. Marshal service on his behalf.

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 United 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.”). However, Plaintiff is cautioned 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:

Case 3:07-cv-00517-BEN-WMC Document 6 Filed 06/28/07 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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\BEN\07-0517-fac.wpd -3- 07cv0517

1. The Clerk shall issue a summons for Defendants, provide Plaintiff with a certified

copy of both this Order and his First Amended Complaint [Doc. No. 5], and forward them to

Plaintiff along with a blank U.S. Marshal Form 285 for each of these Defendants. Plaintiff shall

complete the Form 285s and forward them to the United States Marshal within a reasonable

amount of time such that the U.S. Marshal can timely serve the Defendants within the 120 days

provided by FED.R.CIV.P. 4(m). The U.S. Marshal shall, after receiving Plaintiff’s completed

Form 285s, serve a copy of the Complaint, its Exhibits and summons upon Defendants as

directed by Plaintiff on each 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 First 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). 

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.

Case 3:07-cv-00517-BEN-WMC Document 6 Filed 06/28/07 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

K:\COMMON\EVERYONE\_EFILE-PROSE\BEN\07-0517-fac.wpd -4- 07cv0517

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: June 28, 2007

Hon. Roger T. Benitez

United States District Judge 

Case 3:07-cv-00517-BEN-WMC Document 6 Filed 06/28/07 Page 4 of 4