Henderson v. Nevada Department of Corrections et al

Filing 4

ORDER that the Court will not issue a screening order in this case. FURTHER ORDERED that this case shall proceed on the normal litigation track as guided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman on 2/16/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7
8
9
10
11
12

DARRYL HENDERSON,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF COUNSEL et )
al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
___________________________________ )

Case No. 2:16-cv-00276-JAD-CWH
ORDER

13
14

I.

DISCUSSION

15

Plaintiff, a former prisoner of the Nevada Department of Corrections (“NDOC”), initiated

16

this case by filing a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in state court. (ECF No.

17

1-2 at 1). Plaintiff is represented by counsel. On February 11, 2016, Defendants removed this

18

case. (ECF No. 1).

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 this counseled prisoner

12

case. This case shall proceed on the normal litigation track as guided by the Federal Rules

13

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 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 16th day of February, 2016.

21
22

_________________________________
United States Magistrate Judge

23
24
25
26
27
28
2