UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
August 22, 2010
LOUIS MCCOLLUM, PLAINTIFF,
YATES, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary S. Austin United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR IMMEDIATE SERVICE (Doc. 6.)
Louis McCollum ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the instant action on March 9, 2010. (Doc. 1.) On August 9, 2010, Plaintiff filed a motion for the court to commence the process for service in this action. (Doc. 6.)
The court is required by law to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity, such as the instant action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally "frivolous or malicious," that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2).
With respect to service, the court will, sua sponte, direct the United States Marshal to serve the complaint only after the court has screened the complaint and determined that it contains cognizable claims for relief against the named defendants. As the court has yet to screen Plaintiff's complaint, Plaintiff's request for service is premature.
Plaintiff is further informed that the court has hundreds of prisoner civil rights cases pending before it and which were filed before plaintiff's case. The court screens the cases in the order in which they are filed. Because of the large volume of cases, an inmate can experience delay in resolution of his case. Plaintiff can rest assured that if his address with the court remains current, he will receive all orders issued in his case.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for immediate service, filed on August 9, 2010, is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.