Bracy v. Phoenix, City of et al

Filing 8

ORDER that the motion for screening (part of Doc. 4 ) is denied. The motion to dismiss (part of Doc. 4 ) is denied without prejudice. FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall answer or otherwise respond to the complaint by 01/12/16. Signed by Senior Judge James A. Teilborg on 12/23/15. (NKS)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Nirobia G. Bracy,

No. CV-15-02347-PHX-JAT
Plaintiff,

10
11

v.

12

ORDER

Phoenix, City of, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

Pending before the Court is Defendants’ motion for screening pursuant to 28

16

U.S.C. § 1915(e) which includes an argument for why this Court should dismiss this case

17

at the screening stage. Because the filing fee was paid before the Federal Court, and

18

because Plaintiff is not in custody, this Court finds no basis to screen the complaint

19

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Accordingly, the motion will be denied. Defendants

20

shall answer or otherwise respond to the complaint (including filing a motion to dismiss

21

on the same or different grounds as those identified in the motion for screening if they

22

deem that to be the appropriate course) as set forth below.
IT IS ORDERED that the motion for screening (part of Doc. 4) is denied. The

23
24

motion to dismiss (part of Doc. 4) is denied without prejudice.

25

///

26

///

27

///

28

///

1
2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall answer or otherwise respond
to the complaint by January 12, 2016.

3
4

Dated this 23rd day of December, 2015.

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-