Ahmed v. Martel, et al.

Filing 9

ORDER DENYING 8 Plaintiff's Motion for Service Costs signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 7/16/2013. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

SAIYEZ AHMED,

CASE NO.

1:13-cv-0941-MJS (PC)

10
Plaintiff,

11
12
13
14

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR SERVICE COSTS

v.
(ECF No. 8)
M. MARTEL, et al.,
Defendants.

15

/

16
17
18
19
20

Plaintiff Saiyez Ahmed (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
This action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s Complaint filed June 20, 2013. (ECF No. 1.)
Plaintiff’s Complaint has yet to be screened.

21
22

On July 11, 2013, Plaintiff filed a motion in which he informed the Court he had

23

served the defendants in this action and requested reimbursement of the costs of such

24

service. (ECF No. 8.)

25
26

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief
against a governmental entity or employee of a governmental entity.

27
1

28 U.S.C. §

1

1915(A)(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has

2

raised claims that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which

3

relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from

4
5

such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). The Court screens complaints in the order in

6

which they are filed. However, there are hundreds of prisoner civil rights cases presently

7

pending before the Court. Delays are inevitable despite the Court’s best efforts. Only after

8

the Court screens Plaintiff’s Complaint and if the Court finds that it states a cognizable

9

claim can Plaintiff’s Complaint be served. In the event that the Court finds that Plaintiff has

10

stated a cognizable claim, the Court itself will order service on defendants and direct the

11
12

United States Marshall, not Plaintiff, to serve the defendants.

13

Accordingly, the Court finds Plaintiff’s efforts to serve defendants at this stage of the

14

litigation to be premature. Defendants will not required to respond to Plaintiff’s Complaint

15

until the Court finds that Plaintiff has stated a cognizable claim and ordered Plaintiff’s

16

Complaint to be served. Plaintiff’s request for reimbursement of service costs is DENIED.

17
18
19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22
Dated:
23

ci4d6

July 16, 2013

/s/

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24
25
26
27
2