Margaret Rudin v. Nevada Dept. of Corrections, et al.

Filing 23

ORDER that the Court will not issue a screening order on ECF No. 21 Second Amended Complaint; that this case shall proceed on the normal litigation track as guided by the FRCP. Signed by Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe on 03/06/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 12 ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) TANYA HILL et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ) ___________________________________ ) 13 I. 7 8 9 10 11 MARGARET RUDIN, Case No. 2:15-cv-02503-MMD-NJK ORDER DISCUSSION 14 Plaintiff is a prisoner in the custody of the Nevada Department of Corrections (“NDOC”). 15 (ECF No. 21 at 1). On December 31, 2015, Plaintiff, pro se, initiated this case by submitting 16 a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and filing an application to proceed in 17 forma pauperis. (ECF No. 1, 1-1). On March 2, 2017, this Court appointed Travis N. Barrick, 18 Esq. as pro bono counsel in this case. (ECF No. 22). 19 The general rule under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A is that “[t]he court shall review . . . a 20 complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from the governmental entity or 21 officer or employee of a governmental entity” and “shall identify cognizable claims or dismiss 22 the complaint, or any portion of the complaint” if it is “frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a 23 claim upon which relief can be granted; or . . . seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is 24 immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (b). 25 Section 1915A does not expressly differentiate between represented and 26 unrepresented prisoner cases with regard to screening, and there is no authority addressing 27 this issue. This Court typically does not screen § 1983 prisoner cases where the Plaintiff is 28 represented by counsel. For one thing, the pleading obligations of an attorney under Fed. R. 1 Civ. P. 11 tend to substantially reduce the incidence of claims that are frivolous or otherwise 2 patently noncognizable on their face. Pro se litigants are not attorneys and should not be 3 expected to know how to draft pleadings as if they were. Judicial screening of prisoner 4 complaints serves to prevent prisoner complaints which are truly difficult, if not impossible to 5 understand, from being served upon defendants. Screening of represented cases to decipher 6 the allegations and claims is usually unnecessary. See, e.g., Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 7 903, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2014) (noting that the “purpose of § 1915A is to ensure that the targets 8 of frivolous or malicious suits need not bear the expense of responding”); O’Neal v. Price, 531 9 F.3d 1146, 1153 (9th Cir. 2008) (explaining that the PLRA’s screening provision was intended 10 to “conserve judicial resources by authorizing district courts to dismiss nonmeritorious prisoner 11 complaints at an early stage”). As such, the Court will not screen the second amended 12 complaint (ECF No. 21) in this counseled prisoner case. This case shall proceed on the 13 normal litigation track as guided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 14 II. 15 16 17 18 CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that the Court will not issue a screening order on the second amended complaint in this case. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case shall proceed on the normal litigation track as guided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 19 20 DATED: This 6th day of March, 2017. 21 22 23 _________________________________ NANCY J. KOPPE United States Magistrate Judge 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?