Brian Darnell Edwards v. California State Prison Los Angeles County;

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BRIAN DARNELL EDWARDS,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
CALIFORNIA STATE PRISON LOS
ANGELES COUNTY; et al.,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 10-55463
D.C. No. 2:09-cv-02584-GAF-AN
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Gary A. Feess, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 15, 2011**
Before: CANBY, FERNANDEZ, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Brian Darnell Edwards, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to serve
the complaint. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. The record reflects
FILED
FEB 25 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

10-55463 2
that the district court failed to screen this case as required by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A
and 1915(e)(2)(B). We therefore vacate and remand with instructions to screen the
complaint.
If on remand the district court determines that Edwards’ claims are sufficient
to satisfy the screening requirements, then the court should proceed to order
service of process in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) and Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 4(c)(3).
Edwards shall bear his own costs on appeal.
VACATED and REMANDED.

-- 2 of 2 --