Thomas v. Cox et al

Filing 27

ORDER that the Court will not issue a screening order on the amended complaint in this case. FURTHER ORDERED that this case shall proceed on the normal litigation track as guided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. FURTHER ORDERED that 10 Motion to Add Supplemental Complaint is denied without prejudice. FURTHER ORDERED that 13 Motion to Extend Time is denied as moot. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 11/30/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

12

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
JAMES G. COX et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
___________________________________ )

13

I.

7
8
9
10
11

CASSANDRA THOMAS,

Case No. 2:16-cv-00080-JAD-CWH
ORDER

DISCUSSION

14

Plaintiff is a prisoner in the custody of the Nevada Department of Corrections (“NDOC”).

15

(ECF No. 1 at 1). In January 2016, Plaintiff, then pro se, initiated this case by filing a civil

16

rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff has paid the full filing

17

fee in this matter. (See ECF No. 4). In April 2016, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint,

18

dismissed her complaint in its entirety, and granted her leave to amend. (ECF No. 9). On May

19

23, 2016, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. (ECF No. 11). The Court has not screened

20

the amended complaint.

21

On September 16, 2016, Travis N. Barrick, Esq. filed an application for limited

22

appearance for purposes of obtaining a private medical examination for Plaintiff. (ECF No.

23

21). The Court granted this motion and noted that Mr. Barrick had no other obligations in this

24

case and would not be listed as attorney of record unless further ordered. (ECF No. 23). On

25

November 28, 2016, Mr. Barrick submitted a notice of appearance on behalf of Plaintiff. (ECF

26

No. 26).

27

The general rule under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A is that “[t]he court shall review . . . a

28

complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from the governmental entity or
officer or employee of a governmental entity” and “shall identify cognizable claims or dismiss

1

the complaint, or any portion of the complaint” if it is “frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a

2

claim upon which relief can be granted; or . . . seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is

3

immune from such relief.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (b).

4

Section 1915A does not expressly differentiate between represented and

5

unrepresented prisoner cases with regard to screening, and there is no authority addressing

6

this issue. This Court typically does not screen § 1983 prisoner cases where the Plaintiff is

7

represented by counsel. For one thing, the pleading obligations of an attorney under Fed. R.

8

Civ. P. 11 tend to substantially reduce the incidence of claims that are frivolous or otherwise

9

patently noncognizable on their face. Pro se litigants are not attorneys and should not be

10

expected to know how to draft pleadings as if they were. Judicial screening of prisoner

11

complaints serves to prevent prisoner complaints which are truly difficult, if not impossible to

12

understand, from being served upon defendants. Screening of represented cases to decipher

13

the allegations and claims is usually unnecessary. See, e.g., Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d

14

903, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2014) (noting that the “purpose of § 1915A is to ensure that the targets

15

of frivolous or malicious suits need not bear the expense of responding”); O’Neal v. Price, 531

16

F.3d 1146, 1153 (9th Cir. 2008) (explaining that the PLRA’s screening provision was intended

17

to “conserve judicial resources by authorizing district courts to dismiss nonmeritorious prisoner

18

complaints at an early stage”). As such, the Court will not screen Plaintiff’s amended

19

complaint now that she is represented by counsel.1 This case shall proceed on the normal

20

litigation track as guided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

21

II.

22
23
24
25

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

order on the 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.

26
27
28

1

The Court denies Plaintiff’s pro se motion to add supplemental complaint (ECF No.
10) without prejudice. If Plaintiff seeks to file an amended complaint, she may file a motion
through her attorney. Additionally, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion to extend time to file her
previously filed amended complaint (ECF No. 13) as moot.
2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to add supplemental complaint (ECF No.

1
2

10) is denied without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to extend time (ECF No. 13) is denied as

3
4

moot.

5
6

30th
DATED: This _____ day of November, 2016.

7
8

_________________________________
United States Magistrate Judge

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3