Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Adam Foster filed a complaint (ECF No. 1) against Amazon.com Services LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California, proceeding without counsel under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634. He also moved to proceed in forma pauperis, submitting a declaration that the court found makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The November 4, 2026 order in No. 2:26-cv-02926-DC-CKD (PS), issued by United States Magistrate Judge Carolyn K. Delaney, therefore states that the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted.
Because Foster sought to proceed in forma pauperis, the court explained that 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) requires it to screen every such proceeding and to order dismissal if the case is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against a defendant immune from that relief, citing Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1126-27 (2000). The matter came before the undersigned under Local Rule 302(c)(21) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Applying that screening standard, the court found the complaint states a potentially cognizable claim and ordered service of the complaint on the defendant.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted Foster's motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 2). For screening purposes only, it found that the complaint states a potentially cognizable claim, and on that basis it ordered service of the complaint, ECF No. 1, on Amazon.com Services LLC. That screening finding allowed the case to move forward to service; it did not decide the merits of the age-discrimination allegations, resolve any defense, or award any relief.
The Clerk of Court was directed to issue process under Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and to send Foster one copy of the order, one summons and USM-285 form with related documents, a Consent/Decline form for each named party, and a copy of the order setting a status conference. Within 30 days of the order, Foster must supply the U.S. Marshal at 501 I Street, 5th Floor, Sacramento, California 95814 with the service materials: a copy of the order, a completed summons and completed USM-285 form, a Consent/Decline form, the complaint and scheduling order, plus an extra copy of the complaint for the Marshal. Within 10 days after submitting those documents, he must file a statement with the court confirming the Marshal has them.
The U.S. Marshal must serve process, including the court's scheduling order and Consent/Decline forms, within 90 days of receiving the required information from Foster, without prepayment of costs. If Amazon waives service, it must still return the signed waiver to the Marshal; filing an answer or responsive motion does not relieve it of that requirement, and failure to return the waiver may subject it to an order to pay the Marshal's service costs. The order closes by warning that failure to comply may result in appropriate sanctions, including monetary sanctions or dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).
Key Takeaways
- Foster may proceed without prepaying fees because his declaration satisfied the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), and the court granted his motion.
- The court's finding that the complaint states a potentially cognizable claim is a statutory screening determination under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), not a merits ruling on the ADEA allegations.
- Service of the complaint on Amazon.com Services LLC was ordered, with the Clerk directed to issue process under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4.
- Foster must deliver the required service documents to the U.S. Marshal within 30 days and file a confirmation statement with the court within the following 10 days.
- The Marshal must complete service within 90 days of receiving the materials, and noncompliance with the order can lead to sanctions or dismissal under Rule 41(b).
Why It Matters
The order moves Foster's pro se age-discrimination case past the initial fee and screening stages and places service in the hands of the U.S. Marshal, giving Foster concrete deadlines and document requirements he must meet to keep the case moving. It also establishes for Amazon the service process and the consequences of waiving service without returning the signed waiver to the Marshal.
Because the potentially cognizable claim finding is limited to the statutory screening stage, the order permits service but does not establish liability, resolve any defense, or predict the outcome of the litigation.