IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 19, 2009
JERRY W. ARMSTRONG, PLAINTIFF,
REDDING PAROLE DEPARTMENT, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Craig M. Kellison United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff, proceeding in pro per, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is Plaintiff's complaint (Doc. 1).
The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court is also required to screen complaints brought by litigants who have been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Under these screening provisions, the court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(A), (B) and 1915A(b)(1), (2). Moreover, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h), this court must dismiss an action "[w]henever it appears . . . that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter . . . ." Because plaintiff, who is not a prisoner, has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the court will screen the complaint pursuant to § 1915(e)(2).
Plaintiff's complaint identifies the following defendants: the Redding Parole Department, Al Berdon, Kevin McClure, and Mitch Crowfoot. He alleges he is being mistreated by parole agents who are adding terms of conditions to his parole which were not ordered by the court, is being held without court authority, and is being denied due process. He also alleges false imprisonment, fraud, and conspiracy with the intent to keep him on parole past his time.*fn1
He claims his rights under the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments have been violated by the actions of the defendants.
The court concludes that the complaint is appropriate for service by the United States Marshal without pre-payment of costs. Plaintiff is warned that failure to comply with this order may result in dismissal of the action for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with court rules and orders. See Local Rule 11-110.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The Clerk of the Court shall issue a summons in a civil case, the undersigned's new case documents, and an order setting this matter for an initial scheduling conference;
2. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff the summons, four USM-285 forms, and a copy of the complaint;
3. Within 15 days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the summons by indicating the addresses of the named defendants and shall submit to the United States Marshal at the address indicated below the following documents:
a. The completed summons;
b. One completed USM-285 form for each named defendant;
c. Five copies of the complaint; and
d. Four copies of the court's initial scheduling conference order issued herewith;
4. Within 20 days of the date of this order, plaintiff shall file a notice indicating that the documents described above have been submitted to the United States Marshal;
5. The United States Marshal is directed to serve all process without pre-payment of costs not later than 60 days from the date of this order, such service of process to be completed by serving a copy of the summons, complaint, and initial scheduling conference order on the defendants at the addresses provided by plaintiff; and
6. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the United States Marshal at 501 "I" Street, Sacramento, CA, 95814.