UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
June 9, 2011
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION; RICHARD J. DONOVAN CORRECTIONAL FACILITY; CALIFORNIA STATE PRISON, LOS ANGELES COUNTY/LANCASTER (LAC); B. CASH, individually; M. DAVIS, an individual; WATSON, individually; RIDGEWAY, individually; K. CRUZ, individually; K. BRADFORD, individually; DOTTAVIANO, individually; J. HOMER, individually; CAPT. CORTEZ, individually; CAPTAIN MORRERO, individually; CAPTAIN M. CAVAZO, individually; and DOES 1 - 100, Defendants.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Irma E. Gonzalez, Chief Judge United States District Court
(1) DENYING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT, and
(2) DIRECTING U.S. MARSHAL TO EFFECT SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 4(c)(2) AND 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d)
[Doc. No. 28]
On April 26, 2011, Plaintiff Andre Jones, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed a "Motion to Have Amended Complaint Held in Abeyance," which the Court construes as a motion for an extension of time to file an amended complaint. [Doc. No. 28.] On April 27, 2011, however, Jones filed an amended complaint, alleging prison officials failed to protect from a threat of serious bodily injury in violation of his rights under the Eighth Amendment. [Doc. No. 29.] Accordingly, Jones's motion for an extension of time is DENIED AS MOOT. [Doc. No. 28.]
In his motion for an extension of time, Jones suggests he may not have exhausted administrative remedies before filing his amended complaint. To the extent this is an issue, the parties can address it in later motions.
Unlike Jones's initial complaint, the Amended Complaint does not name any institutional defendants. The Amended Complaint names only the following individual defendants: B. Cash; Watson; Ridgeway; K. Kruz; K. Bradford; Dottaviano, and M. Davis, all alleged to be correctional staff members residing in Los Angles; and P. Cortez; J. Homer; M. Cavos; and Goff, all alleged to be correctional staff members residing in San Diego.
The Clerk shall issue a summons upon only those Defendants named in the Amended Complaint and forward it to Plaintiff along with a blank U.S. Marshal Form 285 for each of those Defendants. In addition, the Clerk shall provide Plaintiff with a certified copy of this Order, and certified copies of his Amended Complaint and the summons for purposes of serving each of those Defendants. Upon receipt of this "IFP Package," Plaintiff is directed to complete the Form 285s as completely and accurately as possible, and to return them to the United States Marshal according to the instructions provided by the Clerk in the letter accompanying his IFP package. Thereafter, the U.S. Marshal shall serve a copy of the Complaint and summons upon each Defendant as directed by Plaintiff on each Form 285. All costs of service shall be advanced by the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d); FED. R. CIV. P. 4(c)(2).
Defendants are thereafter ORDERED to reply to the Amended Complaint within the time provided by the applicable provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(a). See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(2). Additionally, in the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff consents to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge. In replying to the Amended Complaint, Defendants should indicate whether they too consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction over this action.
Plaintiff shall serve upon Defendants or, if appearance has been entered by counsel, upon Defendants' counsel, a copy of every further pleading or other document submitted for consideration of the Court. Plaintiff shall include with the original paper to be filed with the Clerk of the Court a certificate stating the manner in which a true and correct copy of any document was served on Defendants, or counsel for Defendants, and the date of service. Any paper received by the Court which has not been filed with the Clerk or which fails to include a Certificate of Service will be disregarded.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.