Holland v. Schuyler et al

Filing 23

ORDER GRANTING 21 Motion for Extension of Time for Defendants to File Response to First Amended Complaint; ORDER GRANTING Defendants' Request for Screening Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 02/11/18.(30-Day Deadline) (Martin-Gill, S)

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 15 1:16-cv-01271-DAD-GSA-PC Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR SCREENING ORDER C. SCHUYLER, et al., ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME FOR DEFENDANTS TO FILE RESPONSE TO FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT vs. Defendants. 16 (ECF No. 21.) 17 18 19 20 21 This is a civil action filed by Everett Holland (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding 22 pro se. This action was initiated by civil complaint filed by Plaintiff in the Kern County 23 Superior Court on September 29, 2015 (Case #BCV 15 101147 DRL). On August 26, 2016, 24 defendants Esmond, Haak, Hunley, Maciejewski, and Schuyler (“Defendants”) removed the 25 case to federal court by filing a Notice of Removal of Action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1441(c). 26 (ECF No. 1.) 27 On August 22, 2017, the court screened the Complaint under 28 U.S.C. ' 1915A and 28 issued an order dismissing the Complaint for failure to state a claim, with leave to amend. 1 1 (ECF No. 13.) On November 20, 2017, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 2 20.) 3 On December 1, 2017, Defendants requested the court to screen Plaintiff’s First 4 Amended Complaint under 28 U.S.C. ' 1915A and grant Defendants an extension of time in 5 which to file a responsive pleading. (ECF No. 21.) On January 8, 2018, Plaintiff filed an 6 opposition to Defendants’ request for extension of time. (ECF No. 22.) 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 California Correctional 11 Institution in Tehachapi, California, violated his civil rights under the Fourteenth Amendment 12 of the United States Constitution. 13 employees of the CDCR at a state prison when the alleged events occurred, the court is 14 required to screen the complaint. Therefore, Defendants’ motion for the court to screen the 15 First Amended Complaint shall be granted. Because Plaintiff is a prisoner and Defendants were 16 Plaintiff opposes Defendants’ request for extension of time arguing that this case has 17 been pending since September 29, 2015, and Defendants have had ample time to file an answer 18 to the complaint. Plaintiff argues that he will be prejudiced if there is further delay. 19 Notwithstanding Plaintiff’s opposition, the court finds good cause to grant Defendants 20 an extension of time. Requiring Defendants to file an answer before the court has completed 21 the screening process will not prejudice Plaintiff as the court’s screening will decide which 22 Defendants and claims, if any, are allowed to move forward. Until the screening is completed 23 the court finds no good reason to require Defendants to answer the complaint, and any delay is 24 expected at this stage of the proceedings. Therefore, good cause appearing, the motion for 25 extension of time shall also be granted. 26 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 27 1. 28 Defendants’ request for the court to screen the First Amended Complaint is GRANTED, and the Court shall issue a screening order in due course; 2 1 2. Defendants are GRANTED an extension of time until thirty days from the date 2 of service of the court’s screening order, in the event that any part of the First 3 Amended Complaint survives screening, in which to file a response to the First 4 Amended Complaint. 5 6 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 11, 2018 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?