The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary S. Austin United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER FINDING SERVICE OF AMENDED COMPLAINT APPROPRIATE, AND FORWARDING SERVICE DOCUMENTS TO PLAINTIFF FOR COMPLETION AND RETURN WITHIN THIRTY DAYS (Doc. 1)
Plaintiff Keith Duane Arline, Jr. ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed this action on June 27, 2007 in the Western Division of the United States District Court of the Central District. It was transferred to the Eastern District on July 16, 2007. The Court has screened Plaintiff's complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and finds that it states a cognizable claim for relief under section 1983 against Warden Ken Clark for deprivation of outdoor exercise, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); Allen v. Sakai, 48 F.3d 1082, 1087 (9th Cir. 1995); Spain v. Procunier, 600 F.2d 189, 199 (9th Cir. 1979); May v. Baldwin, 109 F.3d 557, 565 (9th Cir. 1997); and Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1132-33 (9th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Service is appropriate for WARDEN KEN CLARK;
2. The Clerk of the Court shall send Plaintiff one (1) USM-285 form, one (1) summons, a Notice of Submission of Documents form, an instruction sheet and a copy of the complaint filed June 27, 2007;
3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of this order, Plaintiff shall complete the attached Notice of Submission of Documents and submit the completed Notice to the Court with the following documents:
b. One completed USM-285 form for each defendant listed above; and
c. Two (2) copies of the endorsed amended complaint filed June 27, 2007.
4. Plaintiff need not attempt service on Defendant and need not request waiver of service. Upon receipt of the above-described documents, the Court will direct the United States Marshal to serve the above-named defendant pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 without payment of costs.
5. The failure to comply with this order will result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.
© 1992-2008 VersusLaw ...