Source: http://ca.findacase.com/research/wfrmDocViewer.aspx/xq/fac.20110824_0001346.SCA.htm/qx
Timestamp: 2016-10-28 18:36:34
Document Index: 94662674

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1915', '§ 1983', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1915', '§ 1997', '§ 1915', '§ 1915']

| Rubin Lawrence Duckett, Cdcr #G-46279 v. Elias
Rubin Lawrence Duckett, Cdcr #G-46279 v. Elias
RUBIN LAWRENCE DUCKETT, CDCR #G-46279, PLAINTIFF,v.ELIAS, PEDERSON, WEEKS L. SCHEMEHORN (AKA L. SHAMEHORN), CORRECTIONAL OFFICER; A. CHRITIONSON(AKA A. CHRISTIANSON), FAC. 4 SERGEANT;W. BEAUCHEMIN, INVESTIGATING OFFICER (LIEUTENANT); M. RUIZ, M.D.,DEFENDANTS.
ORDER: 1) DISMISSING DEFENDANTS AND DOE AND 2) DIRECTING U.S. MARSHAL TO EFFECT SERVICE OF FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO FED.R.CIV.P. 4(c)(3) & 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)
On January 19, 2011, Rubin Lawrence Duckett ("Plaintiff"), a state prisoner currently incarcerated at Chuckawalla Valley State Prison located in Blythe, California, and proceeding in pro se, filed a civil rights Complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleged his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated by Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility officials L. Schamehorn, A. Chritionson, W. Beauchemin, J. Elias, G. Pederson, G. Weeks and an unidentified Doe while he was housed there in 2009.
On March 21, 2011, the Court granted Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis ("IFP"), but sua sponte dismissed his Complaint for failing to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) and 1915A(b). See March 21, 2011 Order [ECF No. 7] at 7. The Court granted Plaintiff leave to file an Amended Complaint in order to correct the deficiencies of pleading identified. Id. at 6. Plaintiff was specifically cautioned that any Defendant not re-named and any claim not re-alleged in his Amended Complaint would be considered waived. Id. (citing King v. Atiyeh, 814 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir. 1987)).
On May 5, 2011, after seeking and receiving clarification from the Court as to how to amend [ECF Nos. 10, 11], Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint which adds M. Ruiz, M.D. as a Defendant, but which omits any reference to and fails to re-allege any claim against previously named Defendants Elias, Pederson, Weeks or Doe [ECF No. 12].
As discussed in the Court's March 21, 2011 Order, because Plaintiff is proceeding IFP and is a "prisoner" as defined by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(h), the Court must now review his Amended Complaint sua sponte before service, and dismiss the entire action, or any part of his Amended Complaint, if it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim, or seeks damages from defendants who are immune. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) and § 1915A; Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc) (noting that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) "not only permits but requires" the court to sua sponte dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint that fails to state a claim); Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 446 (9th Cir. 2000) (§ 1915A).
1. Defendants J. Elias, G. Pederson, G. Weeks and John Doe 1 are DISMISSED without prejudice as Defendants in this matter.
2. The Clerk shall issue a summons as to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint [ECF No. 12] upon Defendants L. Shemehorn, (aka L. Shamehorn), A. Chritionson (aka A. Christianson), W. Beauchemin and M. Ruiz, and shall forward it to Plaintiff along with a blank U.S. Marshal Form 285 for each of these Defendants. In addition, the Clerk shall provide Plaintiff with a copy of this Order, the Court's March 21, 2011 Order granting Plaintiff leave to proceed IFP [ECF No. 7], and copies of his First Amended Complaint and the summons for purposes of serving each Defendant. Upon receipt of this "IFP Package," Plaintiff is directed to complete the Form 285s as completely and accurately as possible, and to return them to the U.S. Marshal according to the instructions provided by the Clerk in the letter accompanying his IFP package. Thereafter, the U.S. Marshal shall serve a copy of the First Amended Complaint and summons upon each Defendant as directed by Plaintiff on each 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)(3). 3. Defendants are thereafter ORDERED to reply to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint within the time provided by the applicable provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a). See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2) (while Defendants may occasionally be permitted to "waive the right to reply to any action brought by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility under section 1983," once the Court has conducted its sua sponte screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and § 1915A(b), and thus, has made a preliminary determination based on the face on the pleading alone that Plaintiff has a "reasonable opportunity to prevail on the merits," Defendants are required to respond).