Lee et al v. United States Department of Agriculture et al

Filing 12

ORDER DIRECTING Plaintiff to Submit USM-285 Forms Within Thirty (30) Days, signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 9/19/2011. Service is approrpiate for United States of America. (Attachments: # 1 Summons Form, # 2 USM Civil Instructions). (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 KEE LEE dba CHIN’S MARKET AND KITCHEN, 10 Plaintiff, 11 v. 12 13 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, 14 Defendants. 15 ) 1:11cv0881 AWI DLB ) ) ) ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF ) TO SUBMIT USM-285 FORMS ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 16 Plaintiff Kee Lee dba Chin’s Market and Kitchen (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and 17 informa pauperis, filed this action on March 31, 2011. Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on 18 August 15, 2011, requesting judicial review of an administrative decision by the United States 19 Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) permanently disqualifying Plaintiff from participating in 20 the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (“SNAP”). 21 DISCUSSION 22 A. Screening Standard 23 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the court must conduct an initial review of the 24 complaint for sufficiency to state a claim. The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof 25 if the court determines that the action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim 26 upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune 27 from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). If the court determines that the complaint fails to state 28 1 1 a claim, leave to amend may be granted to the extent that the deficiencies of the complaint can be 2 cured by amendment. 3 In reviewing a complaint under this standard, the Court must accept as true the allegations 4 of the complaint in question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Trustees of Rex Hospital, 425 U.S. 738, 740 5 (1976), construe the pro se pleadings liberally in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, Resnick 6 v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000), and resolve all doubts in the Plaintiff’s favor, 7 Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). 8 B. Plaintiff’s Allegations 9 Plaintiff operates a retail business in which the majority of his customers are SNAP 10 participants. By a final agency decision, the USDA permanently disqualified Plaintiff from 11 participating in SNAP. Plaintiff alleges that the USDA’s actions were unlawful, arbitrary, 12 capricious, discriminatory and denied him due process. 13 14 15 It appears that Plaintiff’s amended complaint is adequate to state a cause of action. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. 16 17 United States of America 2. 18 19 Service is appropriate for the following Defendant: The Clerk of the Court shall send Plaintiff one USM-285 form, one summons, an instruction sheet and a copy of the amended complaint filed August 15, 2011. 3. Within THIRTY (30) DAYS from the date of this Order, Plaintiff shall complete 20 the attached Notice of Submission of Documents and submit the completed 21 Notice to the Court with the following documents: 22 a. One completed summons; 23 b. One completed USM-285 form for each Defendant; and 24 c. Three (3) copies of the amended complaint filed on August 15, 2011. 25 4. Plaintiff need not attempt service on Defendant and need not request waiver of 26 service. Upon receipt of the above-described documents, the Court will direct the 27 United States Marshal to serve the above-named Defendant pursuant to Federal 28 Rule of Civil Procedure 4 without payment of costs. 2 1 5. 2 3 4 The failure to comply with this Order will result in a Recommendation that this action be dismissed. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 3b142a September 19, 2011 /s/ Dennis L. Beck UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?