UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
September 3, 2009
LEROY DEWITT HUNTER, PLAINTIFF,
YOUNGBLOOD, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary S. Austin United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER FINDING SERVICE OF FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT APPROPRIATE, AND FORWARDING SERVICE DOCUMENTS TO PLAINTIFF FOR COMPLETION AND RETURN WITHIN THIRTY DAYS (Doc. 15)
Plaintiff Leroy Dewitt Hunter ("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 March 7, 2007. On December 31, 2008, plaintiff filed the first amended complaint, upon which this case now proceeds. The Court screened Plaintiff's first amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and found that it states a cognizable claim for relief under section 1983 against Defendant Officer Hinojosa for excessive force under the Due Process Clause. 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 defendant: OFFICER HINOJOSA
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 first amended complaint filed December 31, 2008 (Doc. 15.).
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 the defendant listed above; and
c. Two (2) copies of the endorsed first amended complaint filed December 31, 2008.
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.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.