Wick v. Angelea et al

Filing 62

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 07/19/11 ORDERING that the 57 , 58 Motions for Clarification are GRANTED and McClelland's 56 Motion to Dismiss is premature and is DENIED w/o prejudice. (Benson, A.)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

ERIC WICK,
Plaintiff,

9
10

vs.

11

No. CIV S-09-1027 EFB P

ANGELEA, et al.,

12

Defendants.
/

13
14

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42

15

U.S.C. § 1983. Currently pending is defendant McClelland’s motion to dismiss this action

16

against him. Dckt. No. 56. Because McClelland filed the motion to dismiss before the court

17

screened the amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, both plaintiff and defendants

18

Grannis, Mejia, Hirai, Angalea, Guitierrez and Monroe requested clarification from the court as

19

to whether the court would screen plaintiff’s amended complaint. Dckt. Nos. 57, 58.

20

As noted in the November 23, 2010 order, the court must screen plaintiff’s amended

21

complaint pursuant to § 1915A. McClelland’s motion to dismiss is therefore premature.

22

Accordingly, the motions for clarification are granted and McClelland’s motion to dismiss is

23

denied without prejudice. The Clerk is directed to terminate docket entries nos. 56, 57 & 58.

24
25
26

So ordered.
Dated: July 19, 2011.