(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 after entry of Screening Order. (Maldonado, C)

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