Ahmed v. Martel, et al.

Filing 44

ORDER GRANTING 43 Defendants' Request for Screening Order and Extension of Time to File Responsive Pleading signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 11/8/2016. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

SAIYEZ AHMED,
Plaintiff,

9
10
11
12

v.

Case No. 1:13-cv-00941-DAD-MJS (PC)
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’
REQUEST FOR SCREENING ORDER
AND EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE
RESPONSIVE PLEADING

M. MARTEL, et al.,
(ECF No. 43)
Defendants.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil
rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court screened Plaintiff’s first amended
complaint and found that it stated cognizable First Amendment retaliation claims against
Defendants Martel, Davis, Shannon, Cano, and Combs. (ECF No. 13.) Defendants
moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 17.) The motion
was granted and Plaintiff was given leave to amend. (ECF No. 32.) Plaintiff filed his
second amended complaint on October 5, 2016. (ECF No. 42.)
Defendants request that the Court screen Plaintiff’s complaint in accordance with
28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The request is HEREBY GRANTED. The Court will screen
Plaintiff’s complaint in due course.
Defendants also ask that they not be required to answer or otherwise defend this
action, and that no other defendants be served, until the screening order issues. This

26

request is HEREBY GRANTED. Defendants shall respond to Plaintiff’s amended

27

complaint within thirty days of the order adopting the Court’s screening order, if any

28

1 claims are found to be cognizable. The Court will issue further orders regarding the
2 service of additional defendants, if appropriate, after screening the complaint.
3
4
5

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

November 8, 2016

/s/

6

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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