Brown v. Brown et al

Filing 25

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's 22 Motion for Chief District Court Judge to Take Judicial Notice of Plaintiff's Amended Civil Rights Complaint, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 5/21/15. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RODNEY O’NEAL BROWN,

12
13

Plaintiff,
v.

14

JEFFREY BROWN, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-01184-LJO-BAM (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
CHIEF DISTRICT COURT JUDGE TO TAKE
JUDICIAL NOTICE OF PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED
CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT
(ECF No. 22)

Plaintiff Rodney O’Neal Brown (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

18

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action on July

19

29, 2014. Plaintiff filed his first amended complaint on February 2, 2015. (ECF No. 18.)

20

On March 11, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion to vacate his consent to the undersigned Magistrate

21

Judge due to the failure to screen his complaint. (ECF No. 20.) By order dated March 16, 2015, the

22

Court denied the motion, finding that Plaintiff’s arguments about the delay in screening and his

23

request to withdraw consent both lacked merit. In so doing, the Court explained that it had not

24

unreasonably delayed screening his amended complaint, which had been filed six weeks prior. The

25

Court also informed Plaintiff that the Eastern District of California maintains one of the heaviest

26

caseloads in the nation, which might result in some delay in individual matters. (ECF No. 21.)

27
28

On March 19, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting that the Chief District Court Judge take
judicial notice of his amended complaint and screen it pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Plaintiff
1

1

asserted that the delay in screening his complaint was egregious, unconstitutional and a denial of

2

access to the courts. (ECF No. 22.)
On May 18, 2015, the undersigned Magistrate Judge screened Plaintiff’s first amended

3
4

complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The Court dismissed the complaint and granted Plaintiff

5

leave to amend within thirty days. (ECF No. 24.)

6

As the Court has screened Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, his request for judicial notice

7

and screening by the Chief District Court Judge is no longer necessary and is HEREBY DENIED as

8

moot.

9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10
11

Dated:

/s/ Barbara

May 21, 2015

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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