Madrid v. Pease et al

Filing 9

ORDER denying 8 Motion for Initiation of Service signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 6/25/2015. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

JOHN MADRID,

9

Plaintiff,

10
11

vs.

1:15-cv-00770-LJO-GSA (PC)
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
INITIATION OF SERVICE
(ECF No. 8.)

P. D. PEASE, et al.,

12

Defendants.

13
14

I.

15

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

16

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

17

commencing this action on May 21, 2015. (ECF No. 1.) On June 24, 2015, Plaintiff filed the

18

First Amended Complaint, together with a motion for the court to initiate service of process

19

upon the defendants. (ECF Nos. 7, 8.)
Plaintiff’s motion for initiation of service is now before the court.

20
21

Plaintiff filed the Complaint

II.

SCREENING AND SERVICE OF PROCESS

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

28 U.S.C.

1

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

2

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

3

contains cognizable claims for relief against the named defendants.

4

Plaintiff requests the court to initiate service of process upon defendants in this action.

5

However, Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint was filed less than a week ago and awaits the

6

court’s screening. Therefore it is not time for service in this action.

7

III.

8
9

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

of service of process, filed on June 25, 2015, is DENIED.

10
11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

June 25, 2015

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2