Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00327/USCOURTS-casd-3_11-cv-00327-1/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

27

28

1 11cv0327 JLS (CAB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KAWAN WILLIAMS,

CDCR # F-91284 Civil

No. 

11cv0327 JLS (CAB)

Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING U.S.

MARSHAL TO EFFECT SERVICE

OF FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

PURSUANT TO FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(3) 

& 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)

vs.

W.J. PRICE; G. JANDA;

L. SCOTT McEWEN; D. FOSTON,

Defendants.

I.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On February 16, 2011, Plaintiff, a state prisoner currently incarcerated at Calipatria State

Prison located in Calipatria, California and proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights action pursuant

to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff also filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP”)

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). In addition, this action was purportedly brought as a “class

action” on behalf of several other Plaintiffs. On May 24, 2011, the Court granted Plaintiff’s

Motion to Proceed IFP and sua sponte dismissed his Complaint for failing to state a claim. See

May 24, 2011 Order at 6-7. The Court also dismissed all the named Plaintiffs other than

Plaintiff Williams. Id. The Court found that none of the other named Plaintiffs had signed the

Case 3:11-cv-00327-JLS-KSC Document 7 Filed 09/29/11 Page 1 of 4
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 11cv0327 JLS (CAB)

Complaint nor had they filed separate Motions to Proceed IFP. Id. In addition, Plaintiff

Williams, proceeding pro se, has no authority to represent the legal interest of any other party.

Id. at 3 (citing Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1105 n. 1 (9th Cir. 1995)). On July 7, 2011,

Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint. While Plaintiff continues to list these other

Plaintiffs in the caption of his First Amended Complaint, these Plaintiffs remain dismissed from

this action for the reasons set forth in the Court’s May 24, 2011 Order.

II.

SUA SPONTE SCREENING PER 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) AND § 1915A

As the Court stated in its previous Order, the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”)

obligates the Court to review complaints filed by all persons proceeding IFP and by those, like

Plaintiff, who are “incarcerated or detained in any facility [and] accused of, sentenced for, or

adjudicated delinquent for, violations of criminal law or the terms or conditions of parole,

probation, pretrial release, or diversionary program,” “as soon as practicable after docketing.”

See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b). Under these provisions, the Court must sua sponte

dismiss any IFP or prisoner complaint, or any portion thereof, which is frivolous, malicious, fails

to state a claim, or which seeks damages from defendants who are immune. See 28 U.S.C. §

1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A; Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc)

(§ 1915(e)(2)); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 446 (9th Cir. 2000) (§ 1915A).

Before amendment by the PLRA, the former 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) permitted sua sponte

dismissal of only frivolous and malicious claims. Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1126, 1130. An action is

frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in either law or fact. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319,

324 (1989). However 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A now mandate that the court reviewing

an IFP or prisoner’s suit make and rule on its own motion to dismiss before effecting service of

the Complaint by the U.S. Marshal pursuant to FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(2). Id. at 1127 (“[S]ection

1915(e) not only permits, but requires a district court to dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint

that fails to state a claim.”); see also Barren v. Harrington, 152 F.3d 1193, 1194 (9th Cir. 1998)

(discussing 28 U.S.C. § 1915A).

/ / /

Case 3:11-cv-00327-JLS-KSC Document 7 Filed 09/29/11 Page 2 of 4
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 11cv0327 JLS (CAB)

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s claims are now sufficiently pleaded to survive the sua

sponte screening required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b). Therefore, Plaintiff is

entitled to U.S. Marshal service on his behalf. See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1126-27; 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915(d) (“The officers of the court shall issue and serve all process, and perform all duties in

[IFP] cases.”); FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(3) (“[T]he court may order that service be made by a United

States marshal or deputy marshal ... if the plaintiff is authorized to proceed in forma pauperis

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915.”). Plaintiff is cautioned, however, that “the sua sponte screening and

dismissal procedure is cumulative of, and not a substitute for, any subsequent Rule 12(b)(6)

motion that [a defendant] may choose to bring.” Teahan v. Wilhelm, 481 F. Supp. 2d 1115, 1119

(S.D. Cal. 2007).

III.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

 Good cause appearing therefor, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk shall issue a summons as to Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint upon

the Defendants and shall forward it to Plaintiff along with a blank U.S. Marshal Form 285 for

each of these Defendants. In addition, the Clerk shall provide Plaintiff with a certified copy of

this Order, the Court’s Order granting Plaintiff leave to proceed IFP, and certified copies of his

First Amended Complaint and the summons for purposes of serving each Defendant. Upon

receipt of this “IFP Package,” Plaintiff is directed to complete the Form 285s as completely and

accurately as possible, and to return them to the United States Marshal according to the

instructions provided by the Clerk in the letter accompanying his IFP package. Thereafter, the

U.S. Marshal shall serve a copy of the First Amended Complaint and summons upon each

Defendant as directed by Plaintiff on each Form 285. All costs of service shall be advanced by

the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(3).

2. Defendants are thereafter ORDERED to reply to Plaintiff’s First Amended

Complaint within the time provided by the applicable provisions of Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(a). See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2) (while Defendants may occasionally be permitted

to “waive the right to reply to any action brought by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or

Case 3:11-cv-00327-JLS-KSC Document 7 Filed 09/29/11 Page 3 of 4
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

4 11cv0327 JLS (CAB)

other correctional facility under section 1983,” once the Court has conducted its sua sponte

screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A(b), and thus, has made a preliminary

determination based on the face on the pleading alone that Plaintiff has a “reasonable

opportunity to prevail on the merits,” Defendants are required to respond). 

3. Plaintiff shall serve upon Defendants or, if appearance has been entered by

counsel, upon Defendants’ counsel, a copy of every further pleading or other document

submitted for consideration of the Court. Plaintiff shall include with the original paper to be

filed with the Clerk of the Court a certificate stating the manner in which a true and correct copy

of any document was served on Defendants, or counsel for Defendants, and the date of service.

Any paper received by the Court which has not been filed with the Clerk or which fails to

include a Certificate of Service will be disregarded.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 29, 2011

Honorable Janis L. Sammartino

United States District Judge

Case 3:11-cv-00327-JLS-KSC Document 7 Filed 09/29/11 Page 4 of 4