Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00596/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00596-2/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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

)

FRED JONES, SR., )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

COLETTI, et.al., )

) 

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

CV F- 05-0596 OWW DLB P 

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO

CLARIFY ACTION

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action pursuant to 42

U.S.C. sec. 1983. On June 16, 2005, the Court found that plaintiff’s complaint filed May 3, 2005

appeared to state a cognizable claim for relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(b). The Court ordered that was appropriate for defendants Coletti, Dannelly, M. Stancliff,

B. Wonderly and A. McDaniel. The Court also directed plaintiff to submit the documents required

for service. On June 24, 2005, plaintiff submitted the required documents for service, however, he

also submitted a second amended complaint wherein he names additional defendants, namely, the

District Attorney for the County of Kern and two (2) deputy district attorneys. The Court now

requires clarification regarding whether plaintiff wishes to proceed with the original complaint which

the court has deemed suitable for service or the amended complaint, which includes defendants

which appear to be immune from suit. See Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 427, 430-31 [state

Case 1:05-cv-00596-OWW -DLB Document 16 Filed 01/09/06 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 2

prosecutors are entitled to absolute immunity for acts taken in their official capacity].

Accordingly, within ten (10) days of this order, plaintiff shall advise the Court whether he

wishes to proceed with his original complaint or his amended complaint. If plaintiff chooses to

proceed with his amended complaint, the Court will screen the amended complaint pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 1915A. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 6, 2006 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3c0hj8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00596-OWW -DLB Document 16 Filed 01/09/06 Page 2 of 2