From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mitchell v. Wong

United States District Court, E.D. California
Mar 26, 2008
No. CIV S-07-2090-LEW-CMK-P (E.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2008)

Opinion

No. CIV S-07-2090-LEW-CMK-P.

March 26, 2008


ORDER


Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the court is plaintiff's complaint (Doc. 1), filed on October 5, 2007. 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).

Plaintiff claims he has been denied access to the courts, has been subjected to retaliation and has been denied due process. He claims that he has been denied the ability to mail legal documents to the federal court in his pending cases causing him to miss filing deadlines, has received a rules violation report for filing grievances and civil actions, and that he was denied the right to call witnesses and present evidence at his disciplinary hearing. Plaintiff names the following defendants in his complaint: R. Wong, D. Jackson, D. Vanderville, F. Foulk, R. Peery, D. Van Leer, N. Grannis, F. Floto, D. McGuire, J. Owens, R. Beaman, P. Moench, S. Apple, J. Crandall, F. Shelton, J. Flaherty, F. Frohrib, and D. Simpson.

The complaint appears to state a cognizable claim for relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). If the allegations are proven, plaintiff has a reasonable opportunity to prevail on the merits of this action. The court, therefore, finds that service is appropriate and will direct service by the U.S. Marshal without pre-payment of costs. Plaintiff is informed, however, that this action cannot proceed further until plaintiff complies with this order. Plaintiff is warned that failure to comply with this order may result in dismissal of the action. See Local Rule 11-110.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The court authorizes service on the following defendant(s): R Wong, D. Jackson, D. Vanderville, F. Foulk, R. Peery, D. Van Leer, N. Grannis, F. Floto, D. McGuire, J. Owens, R. Beaman, P. Moench, S. Apple, J. Crandall, F. Shelton, J. Flaherty, F. Frohrib, and D. Simpson;

2. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff one USM-285 form for each defendant identified above, one summons, an instruction sheet, and a copy of the complaint filed October 5, 2007; and

3. Within 30 days of the date of service of this order, plaintiff shall complete the attached Notice of Submission of Documents and submit the following documents to the court:

a. The completed Notice of Submission of Documents;
b. One completed summons;
c. 18 completed USM-285 form(s); and
d. 19 copies of the endorsed complaint filed October 5, 2007.

NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS

Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with the court's order:1 completed summons form; _____ completed USM-285 form(s); and _____ copies of the complaint filed on October 5, 2007. DATED: _________________ __________________________ Plaintiff


Summaries of

Mitchell v. Wong

United States District Court, E.D. California
Mar 26, 2008
No. CIV S-07-2090-LEW-CMK-P (E.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2008)
Case details for

Mitchell v. Wong

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT MITCHELL, Plaintiff, v. WONG, et al., Defendants

Court:United States District Court, E.D. California

Date published: Mar 26, 2008

Citations

No. CIV S-07-2090-LEW-CMK-P (E.D. Cal. Mar. 26, 2008)