Douglas v. Rath

Filing 6

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 2/16/2017 GRANTING 2 Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed IFP; The Clerk of the Court is directed to issue and serve on plaintiff the undersigned's Order Setting Status Conference. Service is ap propriate for Sacramento Police Officer Rath, Badge # 610. The Clerk of the Court is directed to issue forthwith, and the U.S. Marshal is directed to serve within 90 days of the date of this order, all process pursuant to FRCP 4, without prepayment o f costs. The Clerk of the Court shall send to plaintiff 1 each: USM-285 form, summons, a copy of the endorsed filed complaint; and a form for consent to trial by the magistrate judge. Plaintiff is directed to provide to the USM within 15 days from the date of this order, all information needed by the Marshal to effect service of process, and shall file a statement with the court that said documents have been submitted to the USM. (Reader, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RAYMOND M. DOUGLAS,

12
13
14
15
16

No. 2:16-cv-2952 TLN AC (PS)

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

SACRAMENTO POLICE OFFICER
RATH – BADGE #610, an officer,
Defendant.

17
18

Plaintiff is proceeding in this action pro se. The action was accordingly referred to the

19

undersigned, for pretrial proceedings, by E.D. Cal. R. (“Local Rule”) 302(c)(21). This case is

20

related to Douglas v. Sacramento County Sheriff’s Deputy Huffman – Badge #458, 2:16-cv-2953

21

TLN AC (E.D. Cal.). ECF No. 7.

22

Plaintiff has requested authority pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in forma

23

pauperis (“IFP”). Plaintiff has submitted the affidavit required by Section 1915(a) showing that

24

plaintiff is unable to prepay fees and costs or give security for them. ECF No. 2. Accordingly,

25

the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a).

26

I.

SCREENING

27

Granting IFP status does not end the court’s inquiry. The federal IFP statute requires

28

federal courts to dismiss a case if the action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a
1

1

claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is

2

immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

3

Here, plaintiff alleges that defendant arrested him without probable cause, on March 23,

4

2015, at or around 10:30 p.m., while plaintiff was doing nothing wrong. For screening purposes,

5

the complaint appears to state a claim for unlawful arrest cognizable under § 1983 as a violation

6

of the Fourth Amendment. See Dubner v. City & County of San Francisco, 266 F.3d 959, 964

7

(9th Cir. 2001) (“[a] claim for unlawful arrest is cognizable under § 1983 as a violation of the

8

Fourth Amendment, provided the arrest was without probable cause or other justification”). If the

9

allegations of the complaint are proven, plaintiff has a reasonable opportunity to prevail on the

10

merits of this action.1

11

II.

12

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

13

1.

Plaintiff’s request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2), is GRANTED.

14

2.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to issue and serve on plaintiff the undersigned’s

15

Order Setting Status Conference.

16

3.

17

Service is appropriate for the following defendant: Sacramento Police Officer Rath,
Badge # 610.

18

4.

The Clerk of the Court is directed to issue forthwith, and the U.S. Marshal is directed

19

to serve within ninety days of the date of this order, all process pursuant to Federal

20

Rule of Civil Procedure 4, without prepayment of costs.

21

5.

The Clerk of the Court shall send to plaintiff: one USM-285 form; one summons for

22

each defendant; one copy of the endorsed filed complaint; and one form for consent to

23

trial by the magistrate judge.

24

6.

25
26
27
28

Plaintiff is directed to provide to the U.S. Marshal, within 15 days from the date of this
order, all information needed by the Marshal to effect service of process, and shall file

1

Since plaintiff has alleged at least one possibly cognizable claim, the action is not dismissible
on this screening. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (calling for dismissal if “the action” is frivolous
or fails to state a claim). Accordingly, the court will not address plaintiff’s other claims here, as
defendant can address them at an appropriate time.
2

1

a statement with the court that said documents have been submitted to the United

2

States Marshal. The court anticipates that, to effect service, the U.S. Marshal will

3

require, at least:

4

a. One completed USM-285 form;

5

b. For each defendant,

6

i.

One completed summons;

7

ii.

One copy of the endorsed filed complaint;

8

iii.

One copy of the undersigned’s Order Setting Status Conference;

9

iv.

One copy of the form for consent to trial by the magistrate judge;

10

v.

One copy of the instant order; and

11
12

c. An extra copy of the endorsed filed complaint for the U.S. Marshal.
7.

In the event the U.S. Marshal is unable, for any reason whatsoever, to effect service on

13

Officer Rath within 90 days from the date of this order, the Marshal is directed to

14

report that fact, and the reasons for it, to the undersigned.

15

8.

16
17
18
19

The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the U.S. Marshal,
501 “I” Street, Sacramento, Ca., 95814, Tel. No. [phone].

9.

Failure to comply with this order may result in a recommendation that this action be
dismissed.

DATED: February 16, 2017

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RAYMOND M. DOUGLAS,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:16-cv-2952 TLN AC (PS)

Plaintiff,
v.

NOTICE OF SUBMISSION

SACRAMENTO POLICE OFFICER
RATH – BADGE #610, an officer,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff has submitted the following documents to the U.S. Marshal, in compliance with
18
the court’s order filed _____________________:
19
____

completed USM-285 form

____

completed summons form

____

copy of the endorsed filed complaint

____

copy of the form for consent to trial by the magistrate judge

____

copy of the undersigned’s Order Setting Status Conference

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

____________________________________
Date

____________________________________
Plaintiff’s Signature

28
1