From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Samuel v. Sacramento Hous. & Redevelopment Agency

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 30, 2022
2:22-cv-01699 TLN AC PS (E.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2022)

Opinion

2:22-cv-01699 TLN AC PS

11-30-2022

DAVID TYRONE SAMUEL and SYDNEY BROOKE ROBERTS, Plaintiffs, v. SACRAMENTO HOUSING AND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

ALLISON CLAIRE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

Plaintiffs are proceeding in this action pro se, and the action was accordingly referred to the undersigned for pretrial proceedings by E.D. Cal. R. (“Local Rule”) 302(c)(21). Plaintiffs previously requested authority pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). ECF No. 2. That motion was granted, and plaintiffs' initial complaint was rejected with leave to amend during the associated screening process described below. ECF No. 3. Now before the court is plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint.

I. SCREENING

The federal IFP statute requires federal courts to dismiss a case if the action is legally “frivolous or malicious,” fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The 1 court finds that, for screening purposes only, plaintiff's claims are sufficiently cognizable to require a response.

II. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Service of the Third Amended Complaint (ECF No. 11) is appropriate for the following defendants:

o Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency
o La Shelle Dozier, SHRA Executive Director
o MaryLiz Paulson, Director Housing Choice Voucher Program
o Tory Lynch, SHRA Program Manager
o Tanya Cruz, SHRA Program Manager
o Tameka Jackson, SHRA Case Worker
o Lisa Macias, SHRA Case Worker
o Tiffany Brown, SHRA Case Worker
o Ibra Henly, SHRA Employee
o Tyler Thao, SHRA Employee
o Supervisor Phil Serna, SHRA Governing Board Member
o Supervisor Rich Desmond, SHRA Governing Board Member
o Supervisor Sue Frost, SHRA Governing Board Member
o Supervisor Dan Nottoli, SHRA Governing Board Member
o Darrell Steinberg, SHRA Governing Board Member
o Angelique Ashby, SHRA Governing Board Member
o Sean Lolee, SHRA Governing Board Member
o Jeff Harris, SHRA Governing Board Member
o Katie Valenzuela, SHRA Governing Board Member
o Jay Shenirer, SHRA Governing Board Member
o Eric Guerra, SHRA Governing Board Member
o Rick Jennings II, SHRA Governing Board Member
2
o Mai Vang, SHRA Governing Board Member

2. The Clerk of the Court is directed to issue forthwith, and the U.S. Marshal is directed to serve within ninety days of the date of this order, all process pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4, without prepayment of costs.

3. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff the above: one USM-285, one summons for each defendant, a copy of the complaint for each defendant, and an appropriate form for consent to trial by a magistrate judge for each defendant.

4. Plaintiff is directed to supply the U.S. Marshal, within 15 days from the date this order is filed, all information needed by the Marshal to effect service of process, and shall promptly file a statement with the court that said documents have been submitted to the United States Marshal. The court anticipates that, to effect service, the U.S. Marshal will require, for each defendant in ¶ 3, above, at least:

a. One completed summons for each defendant;

b. One completed USM-285 form for each defendant;

c. One copy of the endorsed filed complaint, with an extra copy for the U.S. Marshal for each defendant;

d. One copy of the instant order for each defendant; and e. An appropriate form for consent to trial by a magistrate judge for each defendant.

5. In the event the U.S. Marshal is unable, for any reason whatsoever, to effect service on any defendant within 90 days from the date of this order, the Marshal is directed to report that fact, and the reasons for it, to the undersigned.

6. The Clerk of the Court is directed to serve a copy of this order on the U.S. Marshal, 501 “I” Street, Sacramento, Ca., 95814, Tel. No. (916) 930-2030. 3

7. Failure to comply with this order may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 4

NOTICE OF SUBMISSION

Plaintiff has submitted the following documents to the U.S. Marshal, in compliance with the court's order filed ___________________:

_____ completed summons form

_____ completed USM-285 form

_____ copy of the complaint

_____ completed form to consent or decline to consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction 5


Summaries of

Samuel v. Sacramento Hous. & Redevelopment Agency

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 30, 2022
2:22-cv-01699 TLN AC PS (E.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2022)
Case details for

Samuel v. Sacramento Hous. & Redevelopment Agency

Case Details

Full title:DAVID TYRONE SAMUEL and SYDNEY BROOKE ROBERTS, Plaintiffs, v. SACRAMENTO…

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Nov 30, 2022

Citations

2:22-cv-01699 TLN AC PS (E.D. Cal. Nov. 30, 2022)