Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01925/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01925-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CURTIS HOPPER,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-1925 FCD KJM PS

vs.

FOLSOM POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief under 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983 and various state law claims, and has requested authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to

proceed in forma pauperis. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 72-

302(c)(21).

Plaintiff has submitted the affidavit required by § 1915(a) showing that plaintiff is

unable to prepay fees and costs or give security for them. Accordingly, the request to proceed in

forma pauperis will be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

The federal in forma pauperis statute authorizes federal courts to dismiss a case if

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). 

Case 2:05-cv-01925-FCD-KJM Document 3 Filed 10/27/05 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

2

A claim is legally frivolous when it lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. 

Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 (1989); Franklin v. Murphy, 745 F.2d 1221, 1227-28

(9th Cir. 1984). The court may, therefore, dismiss a claim as frivolous where it is based on an

indisputably meritless legal theory or where the factual contentions are clearly baseless. Neitzke,

490 U.S. at 327. 

A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set

of facts in support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. Hishon v. King &

Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984) (citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)); Palmer

v. Roosevelt Lake Log Owners Ass'n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a

complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in

question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hosp. Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the

pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff's favor,

Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). 

The complaint states a claim for use of excessive force under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

against defendants Litvinov and Schantz. No allegations sufficient to support service, however,

are made against the remaining defendants. The court therefore will direct plaintiff to submit the

forms necessary to serve defendants Litvinov and Schantz. The court declines to order service on

the remaining defendants. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff shall obtain one USM-285 form for defendants Litvinov and Schantz,

one summons for each defendant and an instruction sheet. Blank USM-285 forms, blank

summons, and instruction sheets are available in the office of the Clerk of the Court.

2. Within thirty 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

/////

Case 2:05-cv-01925-FCD-KJM Document 3 Filed 10/27/05 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

3

the following documents:

a. One completed summons each for defendants Litvinov and Schantz;

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

c. Two copies of the endorsed complaint and filed September 23, 2005. 

3. 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 defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 without prepayment of

costs. 

4. Failure to comply with this order may result in a recommendation that this

action be dismissed.

DATED: October 26, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

006

hopper.ifp-usm

Case 2:05-cv-01925-FCD-KJM Document 3 Filed 10/27/05 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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CURTIS HOPPER,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-05-1925 FCD KJM PS

vs.

FOLSOM POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al.,

Defendants. NOTICE OF SUBMISSION

OF DOCUMENTS

 /

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

order filed :

 completed summons form

 completed USM-285 forms

 copies of the Complaint

DATED: 

 

Plaintiff

Case 2:05-cv-01925-FCD-KJM Document 3 Filed 10/27/05 Page 4 of 4