(PC) Doe et al v. State of California et al

Filing 3

ORDER GRANTING Defendants' Requested Extension of Time to Respond to the Complaint as Modified; ORDER Vacating Scheduling Conference, signed by Magistrate Judge Christopher D. Baker on 03/27/2024. Response to Complaint due within Twenty-One Days. (Maldonado, C)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 JENNIFER DOE and NANCY DOE, 9 10 11 12 Plaintiffs, v. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., Defendants. 13 Case No. 1:24-cv-00337-KES-CDB ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ REQUESTED EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPOND TO THE COMPLAINT AS MODIFIED (Doc. 1) ORDER VACATING SCHEDULING CONFERENCE 14 15 16 Background 17 Plaintiffs Jennifer Doe and Nancy Doe, state inmates proceeding through counsel, 18 initiated this action with the filing of a complaint in the California Superior Court for the County 19 of Madera, alleging, among other things, violations of their rights by Defendants State of 20 California and the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) under the 21 Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. (Doc. 1 p. 1). 22 Defendants removed the action to this Court on March 21, 2024. (Doc. 1). In their notice 23 of removal, Defendants request the Court screen Plaintiffs’ complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 24 1915A and grant Defendants 30 days to respond to the complaint from the date of service of the 25 Court’s order screening the complaint. Id. at 3. 26 Defendants’ request for an extension of time to respond to the complaint after service of 27 the Court’s screening order will be granted. The Court shall proceed with screening Plaintiff’s 28 complaint and acknowledges that the screening process is expected to be time consuming given 1 that the complaint spans over 45 pages and raises 21 counts against multiple defendants. 2 Conclusion and Order 3 For the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 4 1. Defendant shall have 21 days to respond to the complaint from the date of service of the 5 6 Court’s order screening the complaint. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A)(i). 2. To allow for screening of the complaint and filing of a responsive pleading, the 7 scheduling conference set for June 17, 2024 (Doc. 2) is HEREBY VACATED to be reset once 8 the pleadings have settled. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 11 Dated: March 27, 2024 ___________________ _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 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?