The opinion of the court was delivered by: Craig M. Kellison United States Magistrate Judge
Plaintiff, a former prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff's first amended complaint (Doc. 7).*fn1
The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The court is also required to screen complaints brought by litigants who have been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Under these screening provisions, the court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if it: (1) is frivolous or malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or (3) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(A), (B) and 1915A(b)(1), (2). Moreover, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3), this court must dismiss an action if the court determines that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Because plaintiff, who is no longer a prisoner, has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis, the court will screen the complaint pursuant to § 1915(e)(2). Pursuant to Rule 12(h)(3), the court will also consider as a threshold matter whether it has subject-matter jurisdiction.
Plaintiff names as defendant Joshua Coleman , an officer with the Vallejo Police Department. Plaintiff claims:
On Monday June 11, 2012, while walking down Mark Street I was approached by officer Joshua Coleman with his taser gun out. He told me to sit on the ground. When I asked him why he shot me with his taser gun. I sustained injuries in my right arm.
The court concludes that it has subject matter jurisdiction and that the complaint is appropriate for service by the United States Marshal without pre-payment of costs. If plaintiff desires service of process by the United States Marshal without pre-payment of costs, plaintiff must comply with the requirements outlined below. Plaintiff is warned that failure to comply with this order, or otherwise effect service pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4, may result in dismissal of the action for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with court rules and orders. See Local Rule 110.
Also before the court are plaintiff's motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Docs. 8 and 10). Because the court granted plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis on August 9, 2012, the current motions will be denied as unnecessary.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The Clerk of the Court shall issue a summons in a civil case, the undersigned's new case documents, and an order setting this matter for an initial scheduling conference;
2. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff the summons, one USM-285 form, and a copy of the complaint;
3. Within 15 days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the summons by indicating the addresses of the named defendants and shall submit to the United States Marshal at the address indicated below the following documents:
a. The completed summons;
b. One completed USM-285 form;
c. Two copies of the amended ...