Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00179/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00179-3/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

GARRISON S. JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL PEACE

OFFICERS ASSOCIATION,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 07 179 LJO SMS P 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

APPOINTMENT OF US MARSHAL TO

SERVE COMPLAINT (Doc. 3.) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION REQUESTING

COMPLAINT BE SERVED WITHOUT

COURT SCREENING (Doc. 11.) 

Garrison S. Johnson (“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 this action

on February 1, 2007. That same day, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Appointment of the U.S.

Marshal to serve process on the Defendants. On April 6, 2007, Plaintiff filed a Motion

requesting that the Court serve the Defendants with his Complaint without conducting a

screening of his case and also moved for a Court Order directing the CDCR to transfer him to

another institution. The Court will address each motion individually. 

A. MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF THE US MARSHAL

In his Motion, Plaintiff simply asks that the Court appoint the U.S. Marshal to serve his

complaint with prepayment of costs. 

The Court will, following a screening and a determination that the Complaint states

cognizable claims for relief, direct the U.S. Marshal to serve the Complaint on the appropriate

Case 1:07-cv-00179-LJO -SMS Document 15 Filed 04/16/07 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

defendants. Plaintiff need not motion the Court for such an order as one will issue after the

screening requirement is met. Accordingly, the Motion for Appointment is DENIED. 

B. MOTION FOR SERVICE WITHOUT SCREENING

Plaintiff next moves the Court for an Order directing service of the complaint without

conducting a screening of the case. Plaintiff states that he filed this action under 28 U.S.C.

§ 1981 and that the Peach Officer’s Association is not a government entity or government officer.

As such, he argues, the Court should not screen his case and should immediately serve the

Complaint. 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court must conduct an initial review of the

Complaint for sufficiency to state a claim. The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion

thereof if it determines that the action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune

from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). If the court determines that the Complaint fails to state

a claim, leave to amend may be granted to the extent that the deficiencies of the complaint can be

cured by amendment. 

Thus, although Plaintiff believes that screening is unnecessary, he is mistaken. 

Accordingly, the Motion for Service without screening is DENIED. 

C. ORDER

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. The Motion for Appointment of the US Marshall to serve the Complaint is

DENIED; and 

2. The Motion for Service without screening is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 13, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00179-LJO -SMS Document 15 Filed 04/16/07 Page 2 of 2