Ford v. King et al

Filing 39

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Motion for Relief According to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) as Moot 37 ; ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Second Motion for Service 38 , signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 12/7/2018. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DARREN VINCENT FORD,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
KING, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Case No. 1:17-cv-00822-DAD-BAM (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
FOR RELIEF ACCORDING TO 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g) AS MOOT
(ECF No. 37)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S SECOND
MOTION FOR SERVICE
(ECF No. 38)

Plaintiff Darren Vincent Ford (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

18

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff’s first amended

19

complaint, filed October 26, 2018, has not yet been screened. (ECF No. 34.)

20

Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion seeking “Relief According to 28 U.S.C. §

21

1915(g)” as well as a motion for the Court to direct the United States Marshal to initiate service

22

of his complaint. (ECF Nos. 37, 38.)

23

Plaintiff’s motion for relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), which the Court construes as

24

a motion to proceed in forma pauperis in this action, is denied as moot. Plaintiff has already been

25

granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 28.)

26

With respect to Plaintiff’s motion for service, the Court notes that Plaintiff filed a similar

27

motion on October 26, 2018, (ECF No. 35), and that motion was denied as premature. The

28

instant motion is denied on the same basis. Future motions for service, filed prior to the
1

1

screening of the amended complaint, will be summarily denied.

2

Plaintiff is reminded that the Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners

3

seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28

4

U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court will direct service of process only after Plaintiff’s complaint has

5

been screened and found to state cognizable claims for relief. Once the complaint is screened and

6

found to have stated a cognizable claim against any defendant, a copy of the complaint will be

7

sent to Plaintiff with service documents to be completed.

8
9

The Court screens complaints in the order in which they are filed and strives to avoid
delays whenever possible. However, there are hundreds of prisoner civil rights cases presently

10

pending before the Court, and delays are inevitable. Plaintiff’s complaint will be screened in due

11

course.

12

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

13

1. Plaintiff’s motion for relief according to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), (ECF No. 37), is

14
15

DENIED as moot; and
2. Plaintiff’s second motion for service, (ECF No. 38), is DENIED without prejudice, as

16

premature.

17
18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

December 7, 2018

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2