Baker v. Yates

Filing 69

ORDER Finding Service of Complaint Appropriate and Forwarding Service Documents to Plaintiff for Completion and Return within Thirty Days signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 01/07/2014. (Case Management Deadline: 2/10/2014) (Attachments: # 1 USM-285 Forms)(Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
HARVEY CURTIS BAKER,

11

Case No. 1:12-cv-00126-LJO-SAB

Plaintiff,

12

ORDER FINDING SERVICE OF
COMPLAINT APPROPRIATE AND
FORWARDING SERVICE DOCUMENTS
TO PLAINTIFF FOR COMPLETION AND
RETURN WITHIN THIRTY DAYS

v.

13
14

JAMES A. YATES, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
On December 26, 2013, Plaintiff Harvey Curtis Baker (“Plaintiff”) filed the First

17

18 Amended Complaint in this action. (ECF No. 68.) The First Amended Complaint appears to be
19 largely identical to the “State Tort Complaint” filed by Plaintiff on March 14, 2013, with the
20 exception that Defendant Officer Jane Doe #1 from the State Tort Complaint is replaced with
21 Defendant S. Moore. Accordingly, the Court construes Plaintiff’s filing as a notice to substitute
1
22 Defendant S. Moore in place of Officer Jane Doe #1 as the defendant in this action.

Having identified Defendant S. Moore, the Court finds service of the complaint

23

24 appropriate. Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
25
26
27
28

1

The Court notes that Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint restates the allegations in the original State Tort
Complaint, including those pertaining to claims that were dismissed by the Court. (See ECF Nos. 54, 59, 61, 62.)
Presumably, Plaintiff restated these allegations so that the First Amended Complaint conformed as closely as
possible to the prior complaint, and not in an attempt to revive claims already dismissed from this action. To the
extent that Plaintiff wishes to assert new or different claims beyond those that the Court found cognizable in its
screening order, Plaintiff must file a motion to amend his complaint. Otherwise, this action shall only proceed on
those claims found to be cognizable in the Court’s April 9, 2013 screening order.

1

1

1.

S. MOORE

2
3

Service shall be initiated on the following defendants:

2.

The Clerk of the Court shall send Plaintiff one (1) USM-285 form, one (1)

4

summons, a Notice of Submission of Documents form, an instruction sheet and a

5

copy of the First Amended Complaint filed December 26, 2013;

6

3.

Within thirty (30) days from the date of this order, Plaintiff shall complete the

7

attached Notice of Submission of Documents and submit the completed Notice to

8

the Court with the following documents:

9

a.

One completed summons for each defendant listed above;

10

b.

One completed USM-285 form for each defendant listed above;

11

c.

Two (2) copies of the endorsed First Amended Complaint filed December
26, 2013; and

12
d.

13
14

4.

All CDCR Form 602 documentation submitted in relation to this case;

Plaintiff need not attempt service on the defendants and need not request waiver

15

of service. Upon receipt of the above-described documents, the Court will direct

16

the United States Marshal to serve the above-named defendants pursuant to

17

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 without payment of costs; and

18

5.

The failure to comply with this order will result in dismissal of this action.

19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 7, 2014
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2