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)

Download PDF
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?