Fields v. Rosenthal

Filing 3

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 9/28/2010 granting request for screening order and granting extension of time to file response to compliant. (Filing Deadline: 11/1/2010).(Lundstrom, T)

(PC) Fields v. Rosenthal

Doc. 3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 RICHARD ROSENTHAL, 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 This is a civil action filed by Kevin Fields ("Plaintiff"), a state prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff initiated this action by civil complaint at the Kings County Superior Court on August 11, 2010 (Case #10-C0309). On September 23,2010, defendant Rosenthal ("Defendant") removed the case to federal court by filing a Notice of Removal of Action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). (Doc. 1.) In the Notice of Removal, counsel for Defendant indicates that Defendant received a copy of the complaint on September 7, 2010. On September 23, 2010, Defendant filed a motion for the court to screen Plaintiff's complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and grant Defendant an extension of time in which to file a responsive pleading. The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Plaintiff's complaint alleges that Defendant Rosenthal, senior librarian at Corcoran State Prison and 1
Dockets.Justia.com

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEVIN FIELDS,

1:10-cv-01764-GSA-PC ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR SCREENING ORDER ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT

Defendant. /

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

an employee of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"), retaliated against Plaintiff, in violation of the First Amendment. Because Defendant Rosenthal was employed by the CDCR at a state prison when the alleged events occurred, the Court is required to screen the complaint. Therefore, Defendant's motion for the Court to screen the complaint shall be granted. In addition, good cause appearing, the motion for extension of time shall also be granted. Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Defendant Rosenthal's motion for the Court to screen the complaint is GRANTED, and the Court shall issue a screening order in due time; 2. Defendant Rosenthal is GRANTED an extension of time until thirty days from the date of service of the Court's screening order in which to file a response to the complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 6i0kij

September 28, 2010

/s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2