Ledesma v. Adame et al

Filing 17

ORDER DENYING 16 Motion for Immediate Initiation of Service, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 12/11/15. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOSE LEDESMA,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

vs.

1:13-cv-01227-AWI-EPG-PC
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
IMMEDIATE INITIATION OF
SERVICE
(ECF No. 16.)

J. TYREE, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18
19

I.

BACKGROUND
Jose Ledesma (APlaintiff@) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

20

this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983.

21

commencing this action on August 7, 2013. (ECF No. 1.)

Plaintiff filed the Complaint

22

The Court screened the Complaint, found cognizable claims, and issued an order on

23

July 17, 2014, requiring Plaintiff to either file an amended complaint or file a notice that he is

24

willing to proceed with the claims found cognizable by the Court. (ECF No. 9.) On August 11,

25

2014, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 10.) On September 21, 2015,

26

Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint, which was granted by the Court on

27

September 23, 2015. (ECF Nos. 12, 13.) On October 13, 2015, Plaintiff filed the Second

28

Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 15.)
1

1

On December 8, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for the court to initiate service of process

2

upon the defendants. (ECF Nos. 7, 8.) Plaintiff’s motion is now before the Court.

3

II.

SCREENING AND SERVICE OF PROCESS

4

The Court is required by law to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief

5

against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity, such as the

6

instant action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. 28 U.S.C. ' 1915A(a). The Court must

7

dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally

8

Afrivolous or malicious,@ that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek

9

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief.

10

28 U.S.C.

' 1915A(b)(1),(2).

11

With respect to service, the Court will, sua sponte, direct the United States Marshal to

12

serve the complaint only after the Court has screened the complaint and determined that it

13

contains cognizable claims for relief against the named defendants.

14

Plaintiff requests the Court to initiate service of process of the Second Amended

15

Complaint upon defendants in this action. However, the Second Amended Complaint awaits

16

the Court’s requisite screening. Therefore it is not time for service in this action.

17

III.

18
19

CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff=s motion for

immediate initiation of service of process, filed on December 8, 2015, is DENIED.

20
21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

December 11, 2015

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
2