Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00171/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00171-2/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

RODNEY S. KOCH,

Plaintiff,

v.

HICKMAN, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 06-171 LJO SMS P 

ORDER

 Rodney Koch (“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. Plaintiff filed the instant action on

February 16, 2006, naming Roderick Hickman, Secretary of the California Department of

Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”), Jeanne Woodford, Former Director of the CDCR,

Warden Sullivan, K.E. Tood, D.A. White, A. Lopez, Officer Fortson, C.A. Eubanks, Everet W.

Fischer, and M. Ruff as Defendants. 

The Court dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend on February 22, 2007. On

February 26, 2007, Plaintiff filed a Supplemental brief regarding exhaustion of administrative

remedies and also a Motion for Order of Service of Process. 

Plaintiff was informed in the Order dismissing with leave to amend that 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). The court must dismiss a

complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally “frivolous or

Case 1:06-cv-00171-LJO -SMS Document 15 Filed 03/08/07 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

malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary

relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). 

With respect to service, the Court will, sua sponte, direct the United States Marshal to

serve the Complaint only after the Court has screened the Complaint and determined that it

contains cognizable claims for relief against the named Defendants. As the Court has yet to

screen Plaintiff’s case, his request for service is premature and unnecessary. Further, Plaintiff is

informed that the Court has hundreds of prisoner civil rights cases pending before it. As a result,

it screens Plaintiff’s the Complaints in the order in which the Complaints are filed. Plaintiff can

rest assured that should his address with the court remain current, he will receive all orders

issued in his case. 

The Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. The Motion for Order of Service of Complaint is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 7, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00171-LJO -SMS Document 15 Filed 03/08/07 Page 2 of 2