UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 1, 2009
JAMES L. DAVIS, PLAINTIFF,
RAMEN, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. Beck United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER FINDING SERVICE OF THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT APPROPRIATE, AND FORWARDING SERVICE DOCUMENTS TO PLAINTIFF FOR COMPLETION AND RETURN WITHIN THIRTY DAYS
Plaintiff James L. Davis ("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 September 6, 2006. The Court has screened Plaintiff's third amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and finds that it states cognizable claims for relief under section 1983 against Defendants Ramen, Rangel, Solis and Johnson for violation of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a); Erickson v. Pardus, 127 S.Ct. 2197, 2200 (2007); Alvarez v. Hill, 518 F.3d 1152, 1157-58 (9th Cir. 2008). Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Service is appropriate for the following defendants: RAMEN RANGEL SOLIS JOHNSON
2. The Clerk of the Court shall send Plaintiff four (4) USM-285 forms, four (4) summonses, a Notice of Submission of Documents form, an instruction sheet and a copy of the third amended complaint filed August 21, 2008.
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:
a. Completed summons;
b. One completed USM-285 form for each defendant listed above; and
c. Five (5) copies of the endorsed third amended complaint filed August 21, 2008.
4. Plaintiff need not attempt service on Defendants 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 defendants 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.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.