UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
March 15, 2010
CRAIG COOPER, PLAINTIFF,
JAMES A. YATES, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary S. Austin United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER FINDING SERVICE OF COMPLAINT APPROPRIATE, AND FORWARDING SERVICE DOCUMENTS TO PLAINTIFF FOR COMPLETION AND RETURN WITHIN THIRTY DAYS
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 This action proceeds on the original complaint filed January 13, 2009. The court screened Plaintiff's complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and found that it states cognizable claims against Defendant Yates for violation of the Eighth Amendment. 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). Plaintiff was granted leave to file an amended complaint. On February 24, 2010, Plaintiff notified the court that he intends to proceed on the original complaint. Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Service is appropriate for the following defendants: JAMES A. YATES
2. The Clerk of the Court shall send Plaintiff one USM-285 form, one summons, a Notice of Submission of Documents form, an instruction sheet and a copy of the complaint filed January 13, 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. Two copies of the endorsed complaint filed January 13, 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.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.