Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02843/USCOURTS-caed-2_14-cv-02843-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal

---

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS JOHN CARLSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

B. DUFFY et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:14-cv-2843 DAD P

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. He commenced this action in the Solano 

County Superior Court. Defendants Duffy, Swarthout, Matteson, Langston, Tileston, Hill, and 

Quint properly removed the action to this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). Defendants 

have paid the filing fee, and they request the court screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.

Although plaintiff is not responsible for paying the filing fee, plaintiff has submitted a 

declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Accordingly, the court will 

grant his motion to proceed in forma pauperis.

1

/////

/////

 

1 By granting plaintiff in forma pauperis status, the court can order the United States Marshal to 

serve process upon any unserved defendant on plaintiff’s behalf. Otherwise, pursuant to Rule 4 

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, plaintiff would be required to complete service of 

process upon any unserved defendants himself.

Case 2:14-cv-02843-KJM-DB Document 12 Filed 10/30/15 Page 1 of 3
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

PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT

When plaintiff commenced this action in the Solano County Superior Court, he identified 

Duffy, Swarthout, Matteson, Langston, Tileston, Hill, Quint, and others as the defendants in this 

action. Since defendants removed this action to federal court, however, plaintiff has filed a first 

amended complaint and a second amended complaint with this court. Although plaintiff asserts 

the same claim concerning the purported illegal removal of his Veterans Disability Benefits in his

amended complaints, plaintiff now identifies individuals Worth, Newton, Rodriguez, Vega, 

Monroy, Abraham, Alvarado, Chan, Villa, Angulo, and Madrid as the defendants in this action. 

For reasons unclear to the court, all of the defendants named in plaintiff’s amended complaints 

are different from those named in the complaint he filed in the Solano County Superior Court. 

The named defendants also appear to be employed at Pleasant Valley State Prison.

Before this court will proceed in this action, the court will direct plaintiff to file a third 

amended complaint. In his third amended complaint, plaintiff must identify all of the defendants

with their position and place of employment in the caption of his pleading and in the section of 

the form complaint designated for that purpose. In addition, in the section of the form complaint 

in which the plaintiff is required to set forth a brief statement of the facts of the case, he must 

describe how each of the named defendants have deprived him of his constitutional or federal 

statutory rights. Plaintiff should state what constitutional or federal statutory right he believes 

each defendant has violated and support each such claim with factual allegations about each 

defendant’s actions.

Insofar as plaintiff wishes to pursue a claim against defendants at California State Prison, 

Solano or California Medical Facility, he may proceed in this action. However, if plaintiff wishes 

to proceed against defendants at Pleasant Valley State Prison, he must file a separate civil rights 

action in the Fresno Division of this court where venue is appropriate with respect to any 

potential claims against defendants at Pleasant Valley State Prison. 

/////

/////

/////

Case 2:14-cv-02843-KJM-DB Document 12 Filed 10/30/15 Page 2 of 3
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

3

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s requests to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. Nos. 9 & 11) are granted.

2. Defendants’ request that the court screen plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. No. 1) is granted.

3. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of service of this order to file a third 

amended complaint that complies with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act, the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Practice; the amended complaint must bear the docket 

number assigned to this case and must be labeled “Third Amended Complaint”; failure to file an 

amended complaint in accordance with this order will result in a recommendation that this action 

be dismissed without prejudice. Alternatively, plaintiff may move to voluntarily dismiss this 

action without prejudice.

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send plaintiff the court’s form for filing a civil 

rights action.

Dated: October 29, 2015

DAD:9

carl2843.14a

Case 2:14-cv-02843-KJM-DB Document 12 Filed 10/30/15 Page 3 of 3