Lillian Smith v. Burgdorff et al

Filing 8

ORDER Granting 4 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response to Complaint signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 08/26/2017. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LILLIAN SMITH,

12
13

Plaintiff,
vs.

14

C. BURGDORFF, et al.,

15

1:17-cv-00634-GSA-PC
ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF
TIME TO FILE RESPONSE TO
COMPLAINT

Defendants.

(ECF No. 4.)

16
17

This is a civil action filed by Lillian Smith (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro

18

se. This action was initiated by civil complaint filed by Plaintiff in the Madera County

19

Superior Court on November 18, 2016 (Case #MCV073193). On May 17, 2017, defendants C.

20

Burgdorff, J. Harry, E. Olesky, and B. Wilkins (“Defendants”) removed the case to federal

21

court by filing a Notice of Removal of Action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). (ECF No. 1.)

22

On May 17, 2017, Defendants filed a motion for an extension of time to file their response to

23

Plaintiff’s complaint. (ECF No. 4.)

24

The court is required to screen complaints in civil actions in which a prisoner seeks

25

redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.

26

§ 1915A(a).

27

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) at the Central California Women’s

28

Facility in Chowchilla, California, violated her rights. Because Plaintiff is a prisoner and

Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that Defendants, employees of the California

1

1

Defendants were employees of the CDCR at a state prison when the alleged events occurred,

2

the court is required to screen the complaint.

3

Defendants request the court to allow them an extension of time to file their response to

4

Plaintiff’s complaint, until thirty days after the court’s screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, if the

5

complaint survives the screening. Good cause appearing, Defendants’ motion shall be granted.

6

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

7

1.

The court shall issue a screening order in due time; and

8

2.

Defendants are GRANTED an extension of time to file their response to
Plaintiff’s complaint, until thirty days from the date of service of the court’s

9
10

screening order, if the complaint survives the screening.

11
12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

August 26, 2017

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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