King v. Chokatos et al

Filing 35

ORDER Granting Request for Screening Order; ORDER Granting Extension of Time to File Response to Complaint 34 , signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 9/8/14. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DARRELL WAYNE KING,

12
13
14
15
16

Plaintiff,

1:12-cv-01936-LJO-GSA-PC
ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR
SCREENING ORDER

vs.
JOHN D. CHOKATOS, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF
TIME TO FILE RESPONSE TO
COMPLAINT
(Doc. 34.)

17

This is a civil action filed by Darrell Wayne King (APlaintiff@), a state prisoner

18

proceeding pro se. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on November 29,

19

2012. (Doc. 1.) The court screened the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915A and issued an

20

order on August 19, 2013, finding that Plaintiff states cognizable claims under § 1983 against

21

defendants Chokatos and Stringer (“Defendants”) for inadequate medical care in violation of

22

the Eighth Amendment, and seeks to proceed with state law claims for medical malpractice and

23

professional negligence under 28 U.S.C. § 1937(a). (Doc 10.)

24

Marshal to serve process upon Defendants. (Id.)

The court directed the U.S.

25

On February 18, 2014, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint for failure to

26

exhaust remedies, failure to comply with the California Government Torts Act, and failure to

27

state a claim for professional negligence against defendant Stringer. (Doc. 16.) On August 25,

28

2014, the court issued an order granting in part and denying in part Defendants’ motion to
1

1

dismiss. (Doc. 32.) Plaintiff was ordered to either file an amended complaint or notify the

2

court of his willingness to proceed only with the claims found cognizable by the court. (Doc.

3

32.) On September 2, 2014, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 33.)

4

On September 5, 2014, Defendants filed a request for the court to screen Plaintiff=s First

5

Amended Complaint under 28 U.S.C. ' 1915A, and to grant Defendants an extension of time in

6

which to file a responsive pleading. (Doc. 34.)

7

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

8

redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.

9

' 1915A(a). Plaintiff=s First Amended Complaint alleges that Defendants, employees of the

10

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) at Pleasant Valley State

11

Prison in Coalinga, California, violated his rights to adequate medical care, in violation of the

12

Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution and state law. Because Plaintiff is a

13

prisoner and Defendants were employees of the CDCR at a state prison when the alleged events

14

occurred, the court shall screen the First Amended Complaint. Therefore, Defendants' request

15

for the Court to screen the First Amended Complaint shall be granted. In addition, good cause

16

appearing, Defendants shall be granted an extension of time to file a responsive pleading.

17

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

18

1.

19
20

Defendants' request for the Court to screen the First Amended Complaint is
GRANTED, and the court shall issue a screening order in due time; and

2.

Defendants are GRANTED an extension of time until thirty days from the date

21

of service of the Court's screening order in which to file a response to the First

22

Amended Complaint.

23
24
25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

September 8, 2014

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

27
28
2