Solano v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department et al

Filing 13

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that the Court will not issue a screening order in this case. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case shall proceed on the normal litigation track guided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 11/19/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - TR)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7

ALEJANDRA SOLANO,
Plaintiff,

8
v.

9
10

LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE
DEPARTMENT et al.,

11
Defendants.
12

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:15-cv-01690-JCM-NJK
ORDER

___________________________________
13
I.

DISCUSSION

14
On September 3, 2015, Plaintiff Alejandra Solano, counseled, initiated this lawsuit by
15
filing a prisoner civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1 at 2, 4). On
16
September 18, 2015, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. (ECF No. 4). Plaintiff is the
17
guardian ad litem for Gabriela Solano, Alejandra Solano, and Luis, Solano Jr. (Id. at 1-2).
18
Plaintiff served Defendants. (See ECF No. 3, 6, 7). On October 21, 2015, Defendants filed
19
a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. (ECF No. 8).
20
The Court ordinarily screens a prisoner’s complaint prior to service. See 28 U.S.C.
21
§ 1915A(a). Both 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”), 42
22
U.S.C. § 1997e, mandate early judicial screening of prisoner complaints. Jones v. Bock, 549
23
U.S. 199, 213-14 (2007) (district courts must screen a prisoner’s complaint “before any
24
responsive pleading is filed”). When defendants file an answer or responsive pleading, such
25
as a motion to dismiss, the need for screening is obviated. See, e.g., Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762
26
F.3d 903, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2014) (noting that the “purpose of § 1915A is to ensure that the
27
targets of frivolous or malicious suits need not bear the expense of responding”); O’Neal v.
28
Price, 531 F.3d 1146, 1153 (9th Cir. 2008) (explaining that the PLRA’s screening provision

1

was intended “to conserve judicial resources by authorizing district courts to dismiss

2

nonmeritorious prisoner complaints at an early stage”).

3

In this case, a screening order is not necessary. Defendants have responded to

4

Plaintiff’s amended complaint by filing a motion to dismiss (ECF No. 8). This case shall

5

proceed on the normal litigation track guided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

6

II.

7
8
9
10

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that the Court will not issue a screening

order in this case.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case shall proceed on the normal litigation track
guided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

11
12

DATED: This 19th day of November, 2015.

13
14
15

_________________________________
NANCY J. KOPPE
United States Magistrate Judge

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