Opinion
2:19-cv-1806 KJM AC P
06-15-2021
COLTON JAMES ROOD, Plaintiff, v. LOCKWOOD, et al., Defendants.
ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
ALLISON CLAIRE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Plaintiff is a former county and current state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 13, 2021, the court screened the complaint and found that plaintiff's allegations against defendants Lockwood, Clark, and Van Gerwen stated claims for relief while his claims against defendant Shasta County Jail Hiring Authority were insufficient. ECF No. 13. Plaintiff was given the option of amending the complaint or proceeding immediately on his claims against defendants Lockwood, Clark, and Van Gerwen. Id. at 8. He was further advised that if he failed to notify the court how he wanted to proceed, the court would assume that he was choosing to proceed on the complaint as screened and would recommend dismissal without prejudice of the claims against the Shasta County Jail Hiring Authority. Id. The time for plaintiff to notify the court as to how he wishes to proceed has now passed, and plaintiff has not made an express election or otherwise responded to the order.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. In accordance with Section IV of the May 13, 2021 screening order (ECF No. 13), service is appropriate for defendants Lockwood, Clark, and Van Gerwen.
2. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff three USM-285 forms, one summons, an instruction sheet, and a copy of the complaint filed September 11, 2019 (ECF No. 1).
3. Within thirty days from the date 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. One completed USM-285 form for each of the following defendants: Lockwood, Clark, and Van Gerwen; and
d. Four copies of the endorsed complaint filed September 11, 2019.
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.
IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that for the reasons set forth in Section V of the May 13, 2021 Screening Order, ECF No. 13 at 5, the claims against defendant Shasta County Jail Hiring Authority be dismissed without prejudice.
These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Within twenty-one days after being served with these findings and recommendations, plaintiff may file written objections with the court. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to Magistrate Judges Findings and Recommendations.” Plaintiff is advised that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).
NOTICE OF SUBMISSION OF DOCUMENTS
Plaintiff submits the following documents in compliance with the court's order filed__:
1 completed summons form
3 completed forms USM-285
4 copies of the complaint