Johnson v. Cate et al

Filing 7

ORDER Denying 5 Plaintiff's Emergency Motion for Screening of Complaint as Moot, signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 4/18/12. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10

GARRISON S. JOHNSON,

CASE NO. 1:10-cv-02348-LJO-MJS PC

Plaintiff,

11

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
EMERGENCY MOTION FOR SCREENING
OF COMPLAINT AS MOOT

12
v.

(ECF No. 5)

13
14
15
16

M. CATE, et al.,
Defendants.
/

17
Plaintiff Garrison S. Johnson, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil
18
rights action on December 16, 2010 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Compl., ECF No. 1.)
19
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Emergency Application Motion Requesting the
20
Assigned Judge and/or an Available District Judge to Screen Plaintiff’s Complaint.
21
(Emergency Motion to Screen, ECF No. 5.) Plaintiff claims he is prejudiced in his ability to
22
prosecute the action due to delay in screening.
23
The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief
24
against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.
25
§ 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has
26
raised claims that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which
27
relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from
28
-1-

1

such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2).

2

On April 17, 2012 the Court issued its Order Dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint with

3

Leave to Amend. (Order Dismissing Compl., ECF No. 6.) Therefore Plaintiff’s Emergency

4

Motion to Screen is moot.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Emergency

5
6

Motion to Screen (ECF No. 5), is DENIED.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9

Dated:
ci4d6

April 18, 2012

Michael J. Seng

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-2-