McCullough v. Shasta County et al
Filing
7
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis M. Cota on 10/4/19 ORDERING that service of the complaint is appropriate for defendants Shasta County and Tom Bosenko. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff two USM-285 forms and serve a copy of this order on the United States Marshal. (cc:USM) (Kaminski, H)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
SAVANAH McCULLOUGH,
12
13
14
No. 2:19-CV-1739-TLN-DMC
Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER
SHASTA COUNTY, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
Plaintiff, who is proceeding with retained counsel, brings this civil action.
17
18
Pending before the court is plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1).
The court is required to screen complaints brought by litigants who have been
19
20
granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Under this screening
21
provision, the court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or malicious;
22
(2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief from a
23
defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(A), (B). Moreover,
24
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3), this court must dismiss an action if the court
25
determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Because plaintiff has been granted leave to
26
proceed in forma pauperis, the court will screen the complaint pursuant to § 1915(e)(2). Pursuant
27
to Rule 12(h)(3), the court will also consider as a threshold matter whether it has subject-matter
28
jurisdiction.
1
1
Plaintiff names the following as defendants: (1) Shasta County; and (2) Tom
2
Bosenko, the Shasta County Sheriff. See ECF No. 1, pg. 1. Plaintiff asserts subject matter
3
jurisdiction under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See id. at 2. Plaintiff alleges that she was an inmate at the
4
Shasta County Jail during all times relevant to the complaint. See id. Plaintiff outlines the
5
following factual allegations:
6
1.
Plaintiff was taken into custody on August 6, 2018,
pursuant to a warrant for failure to appear in the Shasta County Superior
Court.
7
8
2.
Upon booking, she was given a medical examination
during which time plaintiff provided medical personnel a detailed history
of her medical condition including specific information regarding
plaintiff’s seizure disorder which required her to medicate daily with 900
mg of Tegretol.
9
10
11
13
3.
Following her incarceration, plaintiff was denied access to
her seizure medication and began developing a series of sequential
seizures that led to her developing a comatose condition requiring plaintiff
to be transported to Redding Medical Center and admitted to the intensive
care unit for two weeks.
14
Id. at 3.
12
15
According to plaintiff: “[T]he defendants and their employees took virtually no action to carry out
16
the administration of appropriate medication to plaintiff. . . .” id.
17
On the limited record currently before the court, it does not appear that the action
18
is frivolous or malicious or that plaintiff seeks relief from an immune defendant. Nor does it
19
appear that plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.1 The court, therefore,
20
concludes that it has subject matter jurisdiction and that the complaint is appropriate for service
21
by the United States Marshal without pre-payment of costs. If plaintiff desires service of process
22
by the United States Marshal without pre-payment of costs, plaintiff must comply with the
23
requirements outlined below. Plaintiff is warned that failure to comply with this order, or
24
otherwise effect service pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4, may result in dismissal of
25
the action for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with court rules and orders. See Local
26
Rule 110.
27
28
1
This finding does not preclude defendants from appropriately challenging
plaintiff’s complaint.
2
1
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
2
1.
Service of the complaint is appropriate for defendants Shasta County and
4
2.
The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff two USM-285 forms;
5
3.
Within 30 days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall submit to the
3
6
Tom Bosenko;
United States Marshal at the address indicated below the following documents:
7
a.
The completed summons issued on September 11, 2019;
8
b.
One completed USM-285 form for each named defendant;
9
c.
Three copies of the complaint; and
10
d.
Two copies of the court’s initial scheduling order and related
11
documents issued on September 11, 2019;
12
4.
Within 10 days after submitting the required documents to the United
13
States Marshal, plaintiff shall file a notice indicating that the documents described above have
14
been submitted to the United States Marshal, or a notice that plaintiff intends to serve the
15
summons and complaint without assistance from the United States Marshal;
16
5.
If plaintiff seeks the assistance of the United States Marshal, the United
17
States Marshal is directed to serve all process without pre-payment of costs not later than 90 days
18
from the date receipt of the required documents, such service of process to be completed by
19
serving a copy of the summons, complaint, and initial scheduling order on the defendants at the
20
addresses provided by plaintiff;
21
6.
22
United States Marshal at 501 “I” Street, Sacramento, CA, 95814; and
23
24
The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the
7.
This matter is referred back to the assigned District Judge for all future
proceedings.
25
26
Dated: October 4, 2019
____________________________________
DENNIS M. COTA
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
27
28
3
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?