Holland v. Schuyler et al
Filing
11
ORDER granting Request for Screening Order and granting Extension of Time to File Response to Complaint signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 2/24/2017. (Lundstrom, T)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
EVERETT HOLLAND,
12
13
14
Plaintiff,
1:16-cv-01271-DAD-GSA-PC
ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR
SCREENING ORDER
vs.
C. SCHUYLER, et al.,
15
Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF
TIME TO FILE RESPONSE TO
COMPLAINT
16
17
This is a civil action filed by Everett Holland (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding
18
pro se. This action was initiated by civil complaint filed by Plaintiff in the Kern County
19
Superior Court on September 29, 2015 (Case #BCV 15 101147 DRL). On August 26, 2016,
20
defendants Esmond, Haak, Hunley, Maciejewski, and Schuyler (“Defendants”) removed the
21
case to federal court by filing a Notice of Removal of Action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1441(c).
22
(ECF No. 1.)
23
Plaintiff’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. ' 1915A and grant Defendants an extension of time in
24
which to file a responsive pleading. (Id. ¶9.)
Within the Notice of Removal, Defendants requested the court to screen
25
The Court is required to screen complaints in civil actions in which a prisoner seeks
26
redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.
27
' 1915A(a).
28
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) at California Correctional Institution in
Plaintiff=s complaint alleges that Defendants, employees of the California
1
1
Tehachapi, California, violated his civil rights under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United
2
States Constitution. Because Plaintiff is a prisoner and Defendants were employees of the
3
CDCR at a state prison when the alleged events occurred, the court is required to screen the
4
complaint. Therefore, Defendants’ motion for the court to screen the complaint shall be
5
granted. In addition, good cause appearing, the motion for extension of time shall also be
6
granted.
7
Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
8
1.
9
10
Defendants’ motion for the Court to screen the complaint is GRANTED, and the
Court shall issue a screening order in due course;
2.
Defendants are GRANTED an extension of time until thirty days from the date
11
of service of the Court’s screening order in which to file a response to the
12
complaint.
13
14
15
16
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
February 24, 2017
/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?