Source: http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20100827_0001409.SCA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-06-27 10:40:02
Document Index: 177223107

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

| Douglas v. Smelosky
ROBERT DOUGLAS, CDCR #J-27715, PLAINTIFF,v.MICHAEL SMELOSKY, WARDEN; WALKER, SERGEANT; VALENZUELA, LIEUTENANT, DEFENDANTS.
ORDER: (1) GRANTING MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS, IMPOSING NO INITIAL PARTIAL FILING FEE, GARNISHING $350.00 BALANCE FROM PRISONER'S TRUST ACCOUNT [Doc. No. 2]; (2) DENYING MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) [Doc. No. 3]; and AND (3) DIRECTING U.S. MARSHAL TO EFFECT SERVICE OF COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(3) & 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)
Robert Douglas ("Plaintiff"), a state prisoner currently incarcerated at California Men's Colony-East located in San Luis Obispo, California, and proceeding in pro se, has filed a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has not prepaid the $350 filing fee mandated by 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a); instead he has filed a Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis ("IFP") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) [Doc. No. 2], as well as a Motion for Appointment of Counsel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) [Doc. No. 3].
III. SCREENING PURSUANT TO 28U.S.C. §§1915(e)(2) & 1915A(b)
As currently pled, the Court finds Plaintiff's allegations sufficient to survive the sua sponte screening required by 28 U.S.C. &sect;&sect; 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b).*fn1 See Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1126-27. Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiff is entitled to U.S. Marshal service on his behalf. See 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 ...