Robinson v. Dungarvin Nevada, LLC

Filing 14

ORDER that this case shall proceed on the normal litigation track as guided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 11/15/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

JAMES E. ROBINSON,

8
9
10
11

Case No. 2:16-cv-00902-JAD-PAL
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER

DUNGARVIN NEVADA, LLC,
Defendant.

12

This matter is before the court on pro se Plaintiff James E. Robinson’s Amended Complaint

13

(ECF No. 5). On July 6, 2016, the court issued an Order (ECF No. 3) granting Mr. Robinson’s

14

Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 1). Additionally, the court found that his

15

complaint failed to comply with LR IA 10-2, which provides the required format for court filings.

16

Id. at 2. The court therefore dismissed the complaint with leave to amend within 30 days. Id. The

17

order directed the Clerk of the Court not to issue summons because pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

18

§ 1915(e), an amended complaint must be screened prior to a responsive pleading. Id. at 2, 4

19

(citing Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc)). Once the court determines

20

that a complaint states a valid claim for relief, the court then directs the clerk of the court to issue

21

summons to the defendants and the plaintiff must then serve the summons and complaint within

22

120 days. Id. (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m)).

23

On August 3, 2016, Mr. Robinson filed his Amended Complaint (ECF No. 5). The Clerk

24

of the Court erroneously issued summons before the Amended Complaint (ECF No. 5) was

25

screened. See Summons Issued (ECF Nos. 6, 7). Robinson executed service of process. See

26

Summons Returned Executed (ECF No. 8). On November 10, 2016, Defendants Dungarvin

27

Nevada, LLC, Barbara Jordan, and Charlotte McClanahan filed an Answer (ECF No. 9) and

28

Defendants Yolanda Festes and Teneka McQueen filed a Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 10).
1

1

Under § 1915(e)(2), a district court may “dismiss, sua sponte and prior to service of

2

process, a complaint that fails to state a claim.” Lopez, 203 F.3d at 1130 (citing Jackson v. Arizona,

3

885 F.2d 639, 640 (9th Cir. 1989)). This provision was designed to curb the flood of meritless pro

4

se lawsuits, spare the government the expense of serving parties, and save defendants the trouble

5

of answering such complaints. Id. Cf. Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2014)

6

(noting that the purpose of § 1915A’s pre-answer screening is “to ensure that the targets of

7

frivolous or malicious suits need not bear the expense of responding”) (citation omitted). Although

8

early screening conserves judicial resources by reducing the volume of nonmeritorious litigation,

9

post-answer screening does not. As the Defendants have all appeared the court will not screen the

10

Amended Complaint (ECF No. 5). This case shall proceed on the normal litigation track as guided

11

by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

12

Accordingly,

13

IT IS ORDERED: This case shall proceed on the normal litigation track as guided by the

14
15

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Dated this 15th day of November, 2016.

16
17
PEGGY A. LEEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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