UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
June 1, 2012
KAVIN M. RHODES,
M. ROBINSON, ET AL.,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. Beck United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER FINDING SERVICE OF THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT APPROPRIATE AND FORWARDING DOCUMENTS TO PLAINTIFF (DOC. 239) ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANTS LOPEZ, PAZO, AND TIDWELL TO FILE RESPONSIVE PLEADING WITHIN THIRTY DAYS
Plaintiff Kavin M. Rhodes ("Plaintiff") is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff filed his third amended complaint on June 9, 2011. The Court screened Plaintiff's second amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and § 1915(e)(2), and finds that it states a cognizable claim for relief under § 1983 against Wenneker, Pazo, Tidwell, Chapman, Lopez, K. Todd, Metzen, and Garza for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, and against Defendants Garza and Jones for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Service is appropriate for Defendants Wenneker, Chapman, Todd, Metzen, Garza, and Jones. *fn1
2. The Clerk of the Court shall send Plaintiff six (6) USM-285 forms, six (6) summonses, a Notice of Submission of Documents form, an instruction sheet and a copy of the third amended complaint filed June 9, 2011.
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 summonses;
b. One completed USM-285 form for each defendant listed above; and
c. Seven (7) copies of the endorsed third amended complaint filed June 9, 2011.
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. If Plaintiff fails to comply with this Order, it will result in a recommendation of dismissal of this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.