Polk v. Lattimore et al

Filing 36

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 33 Request for Immediate Service of Process signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 12/11/2013. (Flores, E)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF=S REQUEST FOR IMMEDIATE SERVICE OF PROCESS (Doc. 33.) v. 13 14 1:12-cv-01156-AWI-GSA-PC SUSAN MAE POLK, MARY LATTIMORE, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 19 I. BACKGROUND 20 Susan Mae Polk ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights 21 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action was initiated by civil Complaint filed on July 22 16, 2012. (Doc. 1.) On December 2, 2013, Plaintiff filed the Third Amended and a request for 23 the court to initiate service of process in this action. (Docs. 32, 33.) 24 II. SCREENING OF THE COMPLAINT AND SERVICE OF PROCESS 25 Plaintiff requests the court to serve process of the Third Amended Complaint. At this 26 stage of the proceedings, Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint awaits the court’s requisite 27 screening process. The court is required by law to screen complaints brought by prisoners 28 seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity, 1 1 such as the instant action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. 28 U.S.C. ' 1915A(a). The 2 court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are 3 legally Afrivolous or malicious,@ that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or 4 that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. 5 ' 1915A(b)(1),(2). 6 With respect to service, the court will, sua sponte, direct the United States Marshal to 7 serve the complaint only after the court has screened the complaint and determined that it 8 contains cognizable claims for relief against the named defendants. Service of process shall not 9 be initiated until the court has screened the complaint and finds that Plaintiff states cognizable 10 claims. Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for immediate service of process shall be denied. 11 III. 12 13 CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s request for immediate service of process in this action, filed on December 2, 2013, is DENIED. 14 15 16 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 18 19 20 December 11, 2013 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE DEAC_Signature-END: 6i0kij8d 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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?