Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01651/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01651-1/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SIDNEY ANDERSON, No. CIV S-07-1651-FCD-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

M. MARTEL, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1), filed on August

13, 2007. The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 

Plaintiff names the following six individuals as defendants: Martel, Vance,

Shannon, Gold, Finnegan, and Biggs. Plaintiff alleges that these defendants knew of a risk to

plaintiff’s safety posed by another inmate, who was a known enemy of plaintiff. According to

plaintiff, notwithstanding this knowledge, defendants allowed plaintiff and the enemy inmate to

become engaged in an altercation which resulted in plaintiff being injured. Plaintiff also alleges

that defendants retaliated against him by refusing to process his inmate grievance. 

The complaint appears to state a cognizable claim for relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). If the allegations are proven, plaintiff has a reasonable

opportunity to prevail on the merits of this action. The court, therefore, finds that service is

appropriate and will direct service by the U.S. Marshal without pre-payment of costs. Plaintiff is

Case 2:07-cv-01651-FCD-CMK Document 7 Filed 08/24/07 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

2

informed, however, that this action cannot proceed further until plaintiff complies with this order. 

Plaintiff is warned that failure to comply with this order may result in dismissal of the action. 

See Local Rule 11-110. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Service is appropriate for the following defendant(s): 

MARTEL, 

VANCE, 

SHANNON, 

GOLD, 

FINNEGAN, and 

BIGGS;

2. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff one USM-285 form for each

defendant identified above, one summons, an instruction sheet, and a copy of the complaint filed

August 13, 2007; and

3. Within 30 days of the date of service of this order, plaintiff shall complete

the attached Notice of Submission of Documents and submit the following documents to the

court:

a. The completed Notice of Submission of Documents;

b. One completed summons;

c. Six completed USM-285 form(s); and

d. Seven copies of the endorsed complaint filed August 13, 2007.

DATED: August 23, 2007.

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:07-cv-01651-FCD-CMK Document 7 Filed 08/24/07 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

3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SIDNEY ANDERSON, No. CIV S-07-1651-FCD-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs.

M. MARTEL, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS

Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with the court's

order:

 1 completed summons form;

 completed USM-285 form(s); and

 copies of the complaint filed on August 13, 2007.

DATED: __________________ ____________________________________

Plaintiff

Case 2:07-cv-01651-FCD-CMK Document 7 Filed 08/24/07 Page 3 of 3