Carr v. Federal Bureau of Prisons et al
Filing
48
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney on 05/27/16 ordering the clerk of court is directed to prepare 3 summons and copies of the complaint filed 1/26/15 and submit these documents to the United States Marshal for service on defendant Un ited States of America. The U.S. Marshal is directed to serve all process without prepayment of costs not later than 60 days from the date of this order. Service of process shall be completed by delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of California, and by sending a copy of the summons and complaint by registered or certified mail to the Attorney General of the United States at Washington D.C.. The Marshall shall also send a copy o f the summons and complaint by registered or certified mail to the Warden, FCI-Herlong at 741-925 Access Road, A-25, Herlong, CA 96113. Plaintiff's motion for hearing 46 is denied as moot per the 4/11/16 order and the instant order. (Plummer, M)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
LEROY CARR,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
No. 2:14-cv-2110 JAM CKD P
v.
ORDER
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
Plaintiff is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with an action filed
17
18
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on the first amended complaint, in which
19
plaintiff alleges that, after tearing a tendon in his knee at the Herlong Federal Correctional
20
Institution, he did not receive medically necessary surgery for more than six months and was not
21
given adequate pain medication or physical therapy. (ECF No. 16 (“FAC”).)
Previously, the FAC was determined to state a cognizable Eighth Amendment claim
22
23
against defendant Dr. Giron, and service was ordered on this defendant. (ECF Nos. 17, 19 & 21.)
24
All other claims were dismissed, including plaintiff’s claim under the Federal Tort Claims Act
25
(“FTCA”). (ECF Nos. 17 & 19.) However, on April 11, 2016, the district judge assigned to this
26
action granted plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration, vacated the above screening order, and
27
directed the undersigned to rescreen the FAC. (ECF No. 45.) See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
28
/////
1
1
Having reviewed the FAC, the undersigned finds that it states a cognizable Eighth
2
Amendment claim against defendant Giron and a cognizable claim against the United States of
3
American under the FTCA. If the allegations of the amended complaint are proven, plaintiff has
4
a reasonable opportunity to prevail on the merits of this action.
5
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
6
1. The Clerk of Court is directed to prepare three summons and copies of the complaint
7
filed January 26, 2015 and submit these documents to the United States Marshal for service on
8
defendant United States of America.
9
2. The United States Marshal is directed to serve all process without prepayment of costs
10
not later than sixty days from the date of this order. Service of process shall be completed by
11
delivering a copy of the summons and complaint to the United States Attorney for the Eastern
12
District of California, and by sending a copy of the summons and complaint by registered or
13
certified mail to the Attorney General of the United States at Washington, D.C. See Fed. R. Civ.
14
P. 4(i)(1)(A) & (B). The Marshal shall also send a copy of the summons and complaint by
15
registered or certified mail to the Warden, Federal Correctional Institution-Herlong, at 741-925
16
Access Road A-25, Herlong, CA, 96113. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(i)(2).
17
3. Plaintiff’s motion for hearing (ECF No. 46) is denied as moot per the April 11, 2016
18
order and the instant order.
19
Dated: May 27, 2016
_____________________________________
CAROLYN K. DELANEY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
20
21
22
23
24
2 / carr2110.fac
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?