Miller v. Adonis, et al.

Filing 16

ORDER GRANTING 2 Defendants' Motion for the Court to Screen the Complaint and GRANTING Defendants an Extension of Time of Thirty Days From the Date of Service of the Court's Screening Order in Which to File a Response to the Complaint, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 10/4/2012. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

CHARLES A. MILLER,

1:12-cv-00353-LJO-GSA-PC

12

ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR
SCREENING ORDER

Plaintiff,
13
v.

ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF
TIME TO FILE RESPONSE TO
COMPLAINT

14
15

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION,
et al.,

(Doc 2.)

16
17

Defendants.
/

18
19

This is a civil action filed by Charles A. Miller (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro

20

se. This action was initiated by civil complaint filed by Plaintiff in the Fresno County Superior

21

Court on June 15, 2010 (Case #10CDCG02100). On March 8, 2012, defendants Adonis, Griffith,

22

Gutierrez, Igbinosa, Medina, and Mendez removed the case to federal court by filing a Notice of

23

Removal of Action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). (Doc. 1.) On March 8, 2012, Defendants filed

24

a request for the court to screen Plaintiff’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and grant Defendants

25

an extension of time in which to file a responsive pleading.1 Plaintiff has not opposed the requests.

26
27
28

1

On March 8, 2012, Defendants California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"),
Ahmen, Anderson, Chudy, Duenas, Eddings, Pascual, and W alker joined in the Notice of Removal of Action,
request for the court to screen the complaint, and request for extension of time. (Doc. 4.)

1

1

The Court is required to screen complaints in civil actions in which a prisoner seeks redress

2

from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).

3

Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that beginning on April 3, 2009, his right to adequate medical care

4

under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments was violated by Defendants, employees at Pleasant

5

Valley State Prison in Coalinga, California, and Correctional Training Facility in Soledad, California

6

State Prison. Because Plaintiff is a prisoner and Defendants were employed at state prisons when

7

the alleged events occurred, the court is required to screen the complaint. Therefore, Defendants'

8

motion for the Court to screen the complaint shall be granted. In addition, good cause appearing,

9

the motion for extension of time shall also be granted.

10

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

11

1.

12
13

Defendants' motion for the Court to screen the complaint is GRANTED, and the
court shall issue a screening order in due time;

2.

14

Defendants are 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.

15
16
17

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
6i0kij

October 4, 2012

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2