Opinion
1:13-cv-01227-AWI-EPG-PC
12-11-2015
JOSE LEDESMA, Plaintiff, v. J. TYREE, et al., Defendants.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR IMMEDIATE INITIATION OF SERVICE
(ECF No. 16.)
I. BACKGROUND
Jose Ledesma ("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 Complaint commencing this action on August 7, 2013. (ECF No. 1.)
The Court screened the Complaint, found cognizable claims, and issued an order on July 17, 2014, requiring Plaintiff to either file an amended complaint or file a notice that he is willing to proceed with the claims found cognizable by the Court. (ECF No. 9.) On August 11, 2014, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 10.) On September 21, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint, which was granted by the Court on September 23, 2015. (ECF Nos. 12, 13.) On October 13, 2015, Plaintiff filed the Second Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 15.)
On December 8, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion for the court to initiate service of process upon the defendants. (ECF Nos. 7, 8.) Plaintiff's motion is now before the Court.
II. SCREENING AND SERVICE OF PROCESS
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. 28 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.
Plaintiff requests the Court to initiate service of process of the Second Amended Complaint upon defendants in this action. However, the Second Amended Complaint awaits the Court's requisite screening. Therefore it is not time for service in this action.
III. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion for immediate initiation of service of process, filed on December 8, 2015, is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: December 11 , 2015
/s/_________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE