Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Bacon v. Werner

United States District Court, D. Utah

February 21, 2017

MICHAEL A. BACON, Plaintiff,
v.
SEAN WERNER et al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER DISMISSING DEFENDANT & ORDERING SERVICE ON REMAINING DEFENDANTS

          CLARK WADDOUPS JUDGE.

         District Judge Clark Waddoups Plaintiff/inmate, Michael A. Bacon, filed a pro se civil rights case, see 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 (2017), proceeding in forma pauperis, see 28 id. 1915. The Court now screens his Amended Complaint, under the standard that any claims in a complaint filed in forma pauperis must be dismissed if they are frivolous, malicious or fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See Id. §§ 1915-1915A.

         DISMISSAL ORDER ON DEFENDANT SLCPD

         Plaintiff names as defendants Salt Lake City Police Department (SLCPD) and its employees, Sean Werner, Cody Wilkes, and Steven Wozab. He alleges that Defendants used excessive force and fabricated evidence against him. The Court dismisses SLCPD, as a governmental subdivision that has neither the right to sue nor be sued.

         ORDER FOR SERVICE OF PROCESS ON REMAINING DEFENDANTS

         The Court concludes that official service of process is warranted on the remaining defendants. The United States Marshals Service (USMS) is directed to serve a properly issued summons and a copy of Plaintiff's Amended Complaint, (see Docket Entry # 19), along with this Order, upon the following Salt Lake City defendants: Sean Werner, Cody Wilkes, and Steven Wozab.

         Once served, Defendants shall respond to the summons in one of the following ways:

(A) If Defendants wish to assert the affirmative defense of Plaintiff's failure to exhaust administrative remedies in a grievance process, Defendants must,
(i) within 20 days of service, file an answer;
(ii) within 90 days of filing an answer, prepare and file a Martinez report limited to the exhaustion issue[1]; and,
(iii) within 120 days of filing an answer, file a separate summary judgment motion, with a supporting memorandum.
(B) If Defendants choose to challenge the bare allegations of the Complaint, Defendants shall, within 20 days of service,
(i) file an answer; or
(ii) file a motion to dismiss based on Federal Rule of Civil ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.