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)
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?