Source: http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20080111_0000067.SCA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2018-06-21 20:28:16
Document Index: 574058714

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1915', '§ 1983', '§ 1914', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915']

ISIDRO ROMAN, CDCR #J-41754, PLAINTIFF,
ORDER DIRECTING U.S. MARSHAL TO EFFECT SERVICE OF SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 4(c)(2) AND 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)
Plaintiff, an inmate currently incarcerated at the California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility in Corcoran, California and proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on July 23, 2007. Plaintiff initially did not prepay the civil filing fee required by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a) or file a Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Accordingly, the Court dismissed this action for failing to pay the initial filing fee or file a Motion to Proceed IFP. However, Plaintiff later filed a First Amended Complaint on August 8, 2007 and a Motion to Proceed IFP on August 20, 2007. The Court then granted Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed IFP but simultaneously dismissed his First Amended Complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. See Oct. 18, 2007 Order at 8.
Nonetheless, the Court granted Plaintiff forty five days to submit a Second Amended Complaint correcting the deficiencies of pleading noted in the Court's Order. Id. On December 11, 2007, Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint ("SAC").
Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint survives the sua sponte screening required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b). Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to U.S. Marshal service on his behalf. 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)(2) (providing that "service be effected by a United States marshal, deputy United States marshal, or other officer specially appointed by the court ... when the plaintiff is authorized to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915."). However, Plaintiff is cautioned 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).
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 ...