Hudson v. Brian et al

Filing 12

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO SUBMIT SERVICE DOCUMENTS and USM-285 Forms. Service is appropriate for Terry Brian and Robert Volker; Clerk to send plaintiff: 2 Summons 2 USM-285 Forms, and 3 copies of the Complaint filed on 02/20/2008, signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 8/10/2009.Case Management Deadline: 9/14/2009 (Martin, S)

Download PDF
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 27 28 Plaintiff Michael W. Hudson ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on February 20, 2008. On March 7, 2008, Plaintiff consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c)(1), and no other party has appeared in this action. (Doc. 4.) On July 17, 2009, this action was assigned to the undersigned for all further proceedings, including trial and final judgment. (Doc. 8.) On July 31, 2009, the Court screened Plaintiff's complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915A and found that it states a cognizable claim for relief under section 1983 against defendants Terry Brian and Robert Volker ("Defendants") for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, based on the events that occurred on July 2, 2007. (Doc. 10.) Plaintiff was given leave to either file an amended complaint or notify the Court that he is agreeable to proceeding only with the claim found cognizable by the Court. Id. On July 31, 2009, Plaintiff filed written notice to the Court that he 1 v. TERRY BRIAN, et al., Defendants. / MICHAEL W. HUDSON, Plaintiff, 1:08-cv-00249-SMS-PC ORDER FINDING SERVICE OF COMPLAINT APPROPRIATE AND FORWARDING SERVICE DOCUMENTS TO PLAINTIFF FOR COMPLETION AND RETURN WITHIN THIRTY DAYS (Doc. 1) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 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 27 28 wishes to proceed only with the claim found cognizable by the Court. (Doc. 11.)1 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A., 534 U.S. 506, 512-15 (2002); Austin v. Terhune, 367 F.3d 1167, 1171 (9th Cir. 2004); Jackson v. Carey, 353 F.3d 750, 754 (9th Cir. 2003); Galbraith v. County of Santa Clara, 307 F.3d 1119, 1125-26 (9th Cir. 2002). Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Service is appropriate for the following defendants: TERRY BRIAN ROBERT VOLKER 2. The Clerk of the Court shall send Plaintiff two (2) USM-285 forms, two (2) summonses, a Notice of Submission of Documents form, an instruction sheet and a copy of the complaint filed February 20, 2008 (Doc. 1). 3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of this order, Plaintiff shall complete the attached Notice of Submission of Documents and submit the completed Notice to the court with the following documents: a. b. c. 4. Completed summonses; One completed USM-285 form for each Defendant listed above; and Three (3) copies of the endorsed complaint filed February 20, 2008. Plaintiff need not attempt service on Defendants and need not request waiver of service. Upon receipt of the above-described documents, the Court will direct the United States Marshal to serve the above-named Defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 without payment of costs. 5. The failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: icido3 August 10, 2009 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE In an Order issued concurrently with this order, the Court dismissed plaintiff's Due Process claim for f a i l u r e to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under section 1983. 1 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?