Brown-Younger v. Social Security Administration

Filing 42

ORDER Denying 41 Plaintiff's Motion for Service. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 08/22/2012. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AC)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
7
8
9
10
11

KIRSHA BROWN-YOUNGER,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION,
)
)
Defendants.
)
__________________________________________)

Case No. 2:11-cv-00506-GMN-CWH
ORDER

12
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Service (#41), filed July 12, 2012.
13
14
15

Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and, on July 12, 2011, the Court granted her motion to proceed in
forma pauperis and screened Plaintiff’s initial complaint pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). (#32). As
a result of screening, the Court entered an order dismissing the complaint without prejudice and

16
instructing Plaintiff to file an amended complaint by August 8, 2011. (#32). Plaintiff filed her
17
amended complaint on August 9, 2011. Plaintiff now requests that the Court order service of her
18
complaint by a United States marshal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(c)(3).
19
The Court has reviewed the request and finds that it is premature. Notwithstanding IFP
20
status or the payment of partial filing fees, the Court must subject each civil action commenced
21
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) to mandatory screening and order the sua sponte dismissal of any
22
case it finds “frivolous, malicious, failing to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or
23
seeking monetary relief from a defendant immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B). This
24
mandates that courts reviewing an action filed pursuant to the IFP provisions of section 1915 must
25
screen amended complaints prior to directing the United States Marshal to effect service pursuant
26
27

to Rule 4(c)(3) or permitting service on opposing parties. Deere v. Brown, 2011 WL 5323234
(S.C. Cal.) (citations omitted). Thus, before the Court will order service in this case, it will first

28
screen Plaintiff’s amended complaint (#36).

1

Based on the foregoing and good cause appearing therefore,

2

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Service (#41) is denied.

3

DATED this 22nd day of August, 2012.

4
5
6

______________________________________
C.W. Hoffman, Jr.
United States Magistrate Judge

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2