Gardner v. Naphcare, Inc. et al

Filing 4

ORDER - IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Court will not screen the complaint, and this case will proceed along a standard litigation track. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carla Baldwin on 7/8/2024. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - GA)

Download PDF
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 4 PAUL GARDNER, 5 6 v. Case No. 3:24-cv-00277-MMD-CLB Plaintiff, ORDER NAPHCARE, INC.et al., 7 Defendants. 8 9 I. DISCUSSION 10 Plaintiff Paul Gardner filed a civil rights complaint alleging that his rights were 11 violated during his detention at Washoe County Detention Facility (“WCDF”). (ECF No. 12 1-1). Based on the allegations in the complaint, it appears that Plaintiff has been released 13 from custody, and WCDF’s online inmate search does not list Plaintiff as a current 14 detainee. (Id. at 8). Plaintiff has paid the $405 filing fee in full. (ECF No. 1). 15 Federal courts must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which an 16 incarcerated person seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of 17 a governmental entity. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). However, it appears that Plaintiff was 18 no longer incarcerated when he filed the complaint. As such, the screening requirements 19 of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A do not apply to this case. See Olivas v. Nevada ex rel. Dep't of 20 Corr., 856 F.3d 1281, 1284 (9th Cir. 2017) (holding “that a court may screen a complaint 21 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A only if, at the time the plaintiff files the complaint, he is 22 ‘incarcerated or detained’”). 23 Federal courts must also conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which the 24 plaintiff proceeds in forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii); See Lopez v. 25 Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000) (holding that this screening procedure applies 26 to all actions filed in forma pauperis, whether or not the plaintiff is incarcerated). However, 27 in this case, Plaintiff has paid the filing fee in full. 28 /// 1 1 Because Plaintiff is not currently incarcerated, and he has paid the $405 filing fee 2 in full, this case is removed from the screening pool and will proceed according to 3 standard litigation practices. 4 II. 5 6 CONCLUSION IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Court will not screen the complaint, and this case will proceed along a standard litigation track. 7 8 8th day of July 2024. DATED THIS ___ 9 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 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?