Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00773/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00773-4/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

ROBERT HACKWORTH,

Plaintiff,

v.

TORRES, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:06-cv-00773-OWW-GSA-PC

ORDER FINDING SERVICE OF COMPLAINT

APPROPRIATE AND FORWARDING

SERVICE DOCUMENTS TO PLAINTIFF FOR

COMPLETION AND RETURN WITHIN

THIRTY DAYS

(Doc. 1)

Plaintiff Robert Hackworth (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on June

19, 2006. The court screened plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and finds that it

states cognizable claims for relief under section 1983 against defendants Correctional Officer

(“C/O”) G. Torres, C/O D. Morales, C/O M. Grimsley, and Sergeant J. M. Martinez for use of

excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment and retaliation in violation of the First

Amendment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); Hudson v. McMillian, 503 U.S. 1, 8 (1992); Oliver v. Keller, 289

F.3d 623, 628 (9th Cir. 2002); Oltarzewski v. Ruggiero, 830 F.2d 136, 139 (9th Cir. 1987); Gaut v.

Sunn, 810 F.2d 923, 925 (9th Cir. 1987); Rizzo v. Dawson, 778 F.2d 527, 532 (9th Cir. 1985);

Valandingham v.Bojorquez, 866 F.2d 1135 (9th Cir. 1989); Pratt v.Rowland, 65 F.3d 802, 807 (9th

Cir. 1995); Barnett v. Centoni, 31 F.3d 813, 816 (9th Cir. 1994); Hines v. Gomez, 108 F.3d 265, 269

(9th Cir. 1997); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 449 (9th Cir. 2000); McDonald v. Hall, 610 F.2d

Case 1:06-cv-00773-RC Document 17 Filed 06/10/08 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

 In a Findings and Recommendations issued concurrently with this order, the court recommended that 1

plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment excessive force claim and First Amendment retaliation claim against defendant Lt.

Rousseau, based on the July 30, 2003 incident; due process claim against Sgt. Martinez for illegally conducting the

investigation of the July 30, 2003 incident; due process claim against C/O Torres and Lt. Rousseau based on

plaintiff’s retention in Ad Seg/SHU; and loss of “good time work time” credits claim be dismissed for failure to state

a claim upon which relief may be granted under section 1983; and defendant Lt. Rousseau be dismissed from this

action based on plaintiff’s failure to state any claims upon which relief may be granted against him.

2

16, 18 (1st Cir. 1979); Mt. Healthy City School Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274 (1977);

Soranno’s Gasco, Inc. v. Morgan, 874 F.2d 1310, 1316 (9th Cir. 1989). The court also found that

plaintiff fails to state any claim against Lt. Rousseau for which relief can be granted under section

1983. Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 1

1. Service is appropriate for the following defendants:

C/O G. TORRES

C/O D. MORALES

C/O M. GRIMSLEY

SGT. J. M. MARTINEZ

2. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff four (4) USM-285 forms, four (4)

summonses, a Notice of Submission of Documents form, an instruction sheet and a

copy of the complaint filed June 19, 2006;

3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the

attached Notice of Submission of Documents and submit the completed Notice to the

court with the following documents:

a. Completed summons;

b. One completed USM-285 form for each defendant listed above; and 

c. Five (5) copies of the endorsed complaint filed June 19, 2006; 

4. Plaintiff need not attempt service on defendants and need not request waiver of

service. Upon receipt of the above-described documents, the court will direct the

United States Marshal to serve the above-named defendants pursuant to Federal Rule

of Civil Procedure 4 without payment of costs; and

///

Case 1:06-cv-00773-RC Document 17 Filed 06/10/08 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

5. The failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this action

be dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 9, 2008 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00773-RC Document 17 Filed 06/10/08 Page 3 of 3