Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00623/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00623-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
M. Dunbar
Defendant
Fowell
Defendant
Bernard Taylor
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BERNARD TAYLOR,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. DUNBAR, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:13-cv-0623 CKD P

ORDER

Plaintiff, a former inmate at the Sacramento County jail, proceeds pro se with a civil rights 

complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to the undersigned 

by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

I. In Forma Pauperis

Plaintiff has requested leave to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 

and has submitted a declaration that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). 

Accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted.

II. Screening of Plaintiff’s Complaint

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 

court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally 

“frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek 

Case 2:13-cv-00623-TLN-CKD Document 5 Filed 06/03/13 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

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2).

Section 1983 provides a cause of action for the violation of constitutional or other federal 

rights by those acting under color of state law. E.g., Patel v. Kent School Dist., 648 F.3d 965, 

971 (9th Cir. 2011); Jones v. Williams, 297 F.3d 930, 934 (9th Cir. 2002). “Section 1983 

imposes two essential requirements upon a claimant: (1) that a person acting under color of state 

law committed the conduct at issue, and (2) that the conduct deprived the claimant of some right, 

privilege, or immunity protected by the Constitution or the laws of the United States.” Leer v. 

Murphy, 844 F.2d 628, 632-33 (9th Cir. 1988) (citing Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535 (1981), 

overruled on other grounds, Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 328 (1986).

Plaintiff’s complaint states a cognizable claim for relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) against Sergeant Dunbar for deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s serious 

medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment. If the allegations of the complaint are

proven, plaintiff has a reasonable opportunity to prevail on the merits of this action.

Plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a cognizable claim for relief against defendant Fowell, 

the second named defendant, as plaintiff does not allege that Fowell personally participated in any 

of the conduct at issue.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2) is granted.

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to assign this case to a district judge.

3. Service is appropriate for the following defendant: M. Dunbar

4. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff one USM-285 forms, one summons, an 

instruction sheet and a copy of the complaint filed April 1, 2013.

5. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the attached 

Notice of Submission of Documents and submit the following documents to the court:

a. The completed Notice of Submission of Documents;

b. One completed summons;

c. One completed USM-285 form for each defendant listed in number 3 above; 

and 

Case 2:13-cv-00623-TLN-CKD Document 5 Filed 06/03/13 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

d. Two copies of the endorsed complaint filed April 1, 2013. 

6. Plaintiff need not attempt service on defendant 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 defendant pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 without payment 

of costs.

Further, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED THAT defendant Fowell be 

dismissed from this action.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge 

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within fourteen days 

after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections 

shall be served and filed within fourteen days after service of the objections. The parties are 

advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the 

District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

Dated: June 3, 2013

8

tayl.0623.1a.new

_____________________________________

CAROLYN K. DELANEY

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:13-cv-00623-TLN-CKD Document 5 Filed 06/03/13 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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff,

v.

Defendant.

No. 

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 2:13-cv-00623-TLN-CKD Document 5 Filed 06/03/13 Page 4 of 4