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)

Download PDF
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-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?