Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-01981/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-01981-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Joshua Coleman
Defendant
Dennis Gardner
Plaintiff
Melville
Defendant

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DENNIS GARDNER, No. 2:12-CV-1981-CMK-P

Plaintiff, 

vs. ORDER

JOSHUA COLEMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

Plaintiff, a former prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff’s first amended complaint

(Doc. 7).1

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

against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(a). The court is also required to screen complaints brought by litigants who have been

granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Under these screening

This action proceeds on the first amended complaint (Doc. 7) filed as of right on 1

August 27, 2012. A second document entitled “First Amended Complaint,” filed on September

13, 2012, without leave of court, will be stricken. In any event, it appears that both documents

contain the same factual allegations and that both documents delete Melville as a defendant.

1

Case 2:12-cv-01981-GEB-CKD Document 11 Filed 10/16/12 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

provisions, the court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or

malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief

from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(A), (B) and

1915A(b)(1), (2). Moreover, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3), this court

must dismiss an action if the court determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Because

plaintiff, who is no longer a prisoner, has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the

court will screen the complaint pursuant to § 1915(e)(2). Pursuant to Rule 12(h)(3), the court

will also consider as a threshold matter whether it has subject-matter jurisdiction.

Plaintiff names as defendant Joshua Coleman , an officer with the Vallejo Police

Department. Plaintiff claims: 

On Monday June 11, 2012, while walking down Mark Street I was

approached by officer Joshua Coleman with his taser gun out. He told me

to sit on the ground. When I asked him why he shot me with his taser gun. 

I sustained injuries in my right arm.

 

The court concludes that it has subject matter jurisdiction and that the complaint is

appropriate for service by the United States Marshal without pre-payment of costs. If plaintiff

desires service of process by the United States Marshal without pre-payment of costs, plaintiff

must comply with the requirements outlined below. Plaintiff is warned that failure to comply

with this order, or otherwise effect service pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4, may

result in dismissal of the action for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with court rules and

orders. See Local Rule 110. 

Also before the court are plaintiff’s motions for leave to proceed in forma

pauperis (Docs. 8 and 10). Because the court granted plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis

on August 9, 2012, the current motions will be denied as unnecessary. 

/ / /

/ / /

/ / /

2

Case 2:12-cv-01981-GEB-CKD Document 11 Filed 10/16/12 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Clerk of the Court shall issue a summons in a civil case, the

undersigned’s new case documents, and an order setting this matter for an initial scheduling

conference;

2. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff the summons, one USM-285

form, and a copy of the complaint;

3. Within 15 days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the

summons by indicating the addresses of the named defendants and shall submit to the United

States Marshal at the address indicated below the following documents:

a. The completed summons;

b. One completed USM-285 form;

c. Two copies of the amended complaint; and

d. One copy of the court’s initial scheduling conference order issued

herewith;

4. Within 20 days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall file a notice

indicating that the documents described above have been submitted to the United States Marshal,

or a notice that plaintiff intends to serve the summons and complaint without assistance from the

United States Marshal;

5. If plaintiff seeks the assistance of the United States Marshal, the United

States Marshal is directed to serve all process without pre-payment of costs not later than 60 days

from the date of this order, such service of process to be completed by serving a copy of the

summons, complaint, and initial scheduling conference order on the defendants at the addresses

provided by plaintiff; 

6. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the

United States Marshal at 501 “I” Street, Sacramento, CA, 95814; 

/ / /

3

Case 2:12-cv-01981-GEB-CKD Document 11 Filed 10/16/12 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

7. Plaintiff’s motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Docs. 8 and 10)

are denied as unnecessary; and

8. The Clerk of the Court is directed to terminate Melville as a defendant to

this action, which proceeds as against defendant Coleman only. 

DATED: October 15, 2012

______________________________________

CRAIG M. KELLISON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

4

Case 2:12-cv-01981-GEB-CKD Document 11 Filed 10/16/12 Page 4 of 4