From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

MEHARI v. COX

United States District Court, E.D. California
May 28, 2008
No. CIV S-08-1089 MCE DAD P (E.D. Cal. May. 28, 2008)

Opinion

No. CIV S-08-1089 MCE DAD P.

May 28, 2008


ORDER


Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. This proceeding was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge in accordance with Local Rule 72-302 and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Plaintiff has submitted an in forma pauperis application that makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). Accordingly, plaintiff will be granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

Plaintiff is required to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1914(a) 1915(b)(1). An initial partial filing fee of $19.80 will be assessed by this order. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1). By separate order, the court will direct the appropriate agency to collect the initial partial filing fee from plaintiff's prison trust account and forward it to the Clerk of the Court. Thereafter, plaintiff will be obligated to make monthly payments of twenty percent of the preceding month's income credited to plaintiff's prison trust account. These payments will be collected and forwarded by the appropriate agency to the Clerk of the Court each time the amount in plaintiff's account exceeds $10.00, until the filing fee is paid in full. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2).

Plaintiff's complaint appears to state cognizable claims for relief against defendants Cox, James, and Flaherty. See 42 U.S.C. § 1983; 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). If the allegations of the complaint are proven, plaintiff has a reasonable opportunity to prevail on the merits of this action. The court finds that plaintiff's complaint does not state cognizable claims against the various John Does plaintiff has named as defendants.

Plaintiff is advised that "[a]s a general rule, the use of 'John Doe' to identify a defendant is not favored." Gillespie v. Civiletti, 629 F.2d 637, 642 (9th Cir. 1980). If plaintiff learns the identity of the various John Does he refers to in his complaint through the discovery process, he may file a motion to amend his complaint, together with a proposed amended complaint.See Fed.R.Civ.P 15; Local Rule 15-220.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff's May 19, 2008 application to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.

2. Plaintiff is obligated to pay the statutory filing fee of $350.00 for this action. Plaintiff is assessed an initial partial filing fee of $19.80. All fees shall be collected and paid in accordance with this court's order to the Director of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation filed concurrently herewith.

3. Service of the complaint is appropriate for the following defendants: Cox, James, and Flaherty.

4. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff three USM-285 forms, one summons, an instruction sheet, and a copy of the complaint filed May 19, 2008.

5. Within thirty days from the date of this order, plaintiff shall complete the attached Notice of Submission of Documents and submit all of the following documents to the court at the same time:

a. The completed, signed Notice of Submission of Documents;
b. One completed summons;
c. One completed USM-285 form for each defendant listed in number 3 above; and
d. Four copies of the complaint filed May 19, 2008.

6. Plaintiff shall not attempt to effect service of the complaint on defendants or request a waiver of service of summons from any defendant. 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.

NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS

Plaintiff hereby submits the following documents in compliance with the court's order filed _____________________:

______ one completed summons form;

______ three completed USM-285 forms; and

______ four true and exact copies of the complaint filed May 19, 2008.

DATED: ________________. ________________________________ Plaintiff


Summaries of

MEHARI v. COX

United States District Court, E.D. California
May 28, 2008
No. CIV S-08-1089 MCE DAD P (E.D. Cal. May. 28, 2008)
Case details for

MEHARI v. COX

Case Details

Full title:ZENAWE MEHARI, Plaintiff, v. R.V. COX, et al., Defendants

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

Date published: May 28, 2008

Citations

No. CIV S-08-1089 MCE DAD P (E.D. Cal. May. 28, 2008)