UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 11, 2009
CHARLES AUSTIN PARKS, PLAINTIFF,
DARYL G. ADAMS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: William M. Wunderlich United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff Charles Austin Parks ("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 the Original Complaint this action on October 27, 2008. (Doc. #1.) On April 6, 2009, the Court screened Plaintiff's Original Complaint pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and found that it stated some cognizable claims and ordered Plaintiff either to notify the court of his willingness to proceed on the claims found to be cognizable, or to file an amended complaint. (Doc. #7.) Plaintiff filed his First Amended Complaint on April 27, 2009. (Doc. #9.)
The Court has screened Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and finds that it states cognizable claims against Defendants Braswell, Young, Hieng, Pighting, Alexander, and John Doe for use of excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. 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: BRASWELL YOUNG HIENG PIGHTING ALEXANDER
2. The Clerk of the Court shall send Plaintiff five (5) USM-285 forms, five (5) summonses, a Notice of Submission of Documents form, an instruction sheet and a copy of the First Amended Complaint filed April 27, 2009.
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. Six (6) copies of the endorsed complaint filed April 27, 2009.
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.