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)

Download PDF
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?