Source: http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20080325_0000548.SCA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2017-01-17 15:19:37
Document Index: 385104258

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

ANTUAN WILLIAMS, CDCR #H-16685, PLAINTIFF,v.G.J. JANDA, ASSOCIATE WARDEN; 4(C)(2) AND 28 U.S.C. &SECT; 1915(D) W.J. PRICE; FACILITY CAPTAIN; R. JOHNSON, CORRECTIONAL LIEUTENANT; ANAYA, CORRECTIONAL COUNSELOR, DEFENDANTS.
ORDER DIRECTING U.S. MARSHAL TO EFFECT SERVICE PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. OF FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, an inmate currently incarcerated at Centinela State Prison located in Imperial, California and proceeding pro se, filed a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on September 4, 2007. On October 31, 2007, Plaintiff submitted a Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) [Doc. No. 4]. On December 6, 2007, this Court granted Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed IFP but simultaneously dismissed his Complaint for failing to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. See Dec. 6, 2007 Order at 5-6.
Nonetheless, the Court granted Plaintiff forty five days to submit a First Amended Complaint correcting the deficiencies of pleading noted in the Court's Order. Id. at 6. In addition, Plaintiff was cautioned that any Defendants not named and all claims not re-alleged in the Amended Complaint will be deemed to have been waived. Id. (citing King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987). On January 23, 2008, Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint ("FAC"). However, Plaintiff did not rename Defendant Nelson and accordingly, Defendant Nelson is dismissed from this action. King, 814 F.2d at 567.
Here, the Court finds that Plaintiff's retaliation claims in his First Amended Complaint survive the sua sponte screening required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b), and that Plaintiff is therefore automatically entitled to U.S. Marshal service on his behalf. See 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 Untied 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).
1. Defendant Nelson is DISMISSED from this action. King, 814 F.2d at 567.
2. The United States Marshal shall serve a copy of the First Amended Complaint and summons upon Defendants as directed by Plaintiff on U.S. Marshal Form 285. All costs of service shall be advanced by the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(2).