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-
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?