ORDER SCREENING AMENDED COMPLAINT; ORDERING SERVICE

Re: ECF 11

NATHANAEL M. COUSINS, Magistrate Judge.

Previously, the Court granted Parrish's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and screened Parrish's complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). ECF 10. The Court found that the complaint failed to state whether Parrish was still incarcerated and subject to administrative exhaustion requirements under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(a). And the Court found that the complaint failed to allege facts against defendant California Forensic Medical Group (CFMG) under a theory of municipal liability. With leave, Parrish filed an amended complaint. ECF 11.

The amended complaint clarifies that Parrish is no longer incarcerated, id. ¶ 15, which eliminates the need for exhaustion of administrative remedies for Parrish's federal claims. The Court need not determine whether Parrish sufficiently pleads administrative exhaustion of his Bane Act claim, because the presence of at least one valid claim warrants service on the defendants.

And the amended complaint adds allegations that CFMG and its employees engage in "the systematic malpractice" of taking contracts to provide care to prisoners but then "purposely and intentionally engage in practices whereby they fail to properly treat patients" in order to further their financial bottom line. Id. ¶ 88. These factual allegations support a claim under Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658, 691 (1978).

Thus, the Court FINDS that Parrish's amended complaint states a plausible claim for relief against all defendants such that service is warranted. This finding is without prejudice to the defendants filing a motion to dismiss. The Court ORDERS the U.S. Marshals Service to serve all defendants with a summons and copy of the amended complaint.

All parties are directed to indicate whether they consent or decline the jurisdiction of a U.S. Magistrate Judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Any party is free to withhold consent without adverse consequences. A consent/declination form is attached to this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

CONSENT OR DECLINATION TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE JURISDICTION

INSTRUCTIONS: Please indicate below by checking one of the two boxes whether you (if you are the party) or the party you represent (if you are an attorney in the case) choose(s) to consent or decline magistratejudge jurisdiction in this matter. Sign this form below your selection.

[] Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), I voluntarily consent to have a United States magistratejudge conduct all further proceedings in this case, including trial and entry of finaljudgment. I understand that appeal from thejudgment shall be taken directly to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

OR

[] Decline Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), I decline to have a United States magistratejudge conduct all further proceedings in this case and I hereby request that this case be reassigned to a United States districtjudge.