Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Robinson v. Schwarzenegger

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


March 13, 2009

JAMES WILLIAM ROBINSON, PLAINTIFF,
v.
GOVERNOR ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary S. Austin United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR SCREENING ORDER

ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT

This is a civil action filed by plaintiff James William Robinson ("plaintiff"), a state prisoner proceeding pro se. This action was initiated by civil complaint filed by plaintiff in the Tuolomne County Superior Court on December 11, 2008 (Case #CV54268). On February 20, 2009, defendants Cate, Schwarzenegger, Clay, and VonSavoye ("defendants") removed the case to federal court by filing a Notice of Removal of Action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b). (Doc. 1.) In the Notice of Removal, counsel for defendants indicate that all of the defendants received a copy of the complaint between January 20 and January 22, 2009. Also in the Notice of Removal, defendants made a request for the court to screen plaintiff's complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and grant defendants an extension of time in which to file a response to the complaint. Plaintiff has not filed an opposition.

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).

Plaintiff's complaint alleges that in 2007, while he was incarcerated at Jamestown Conservation Center, defendants violated his constitutional rights when they threatened and harassed him, retaliated against him, denied him use of the law library, denied him access to the courts, deprived him of his rights to send confidential mail, and failed to adequately respond to his grievances, causing him emotional distress. Because plaintiff was a prisoner and defendants were employed as officers at a California state prison when the alleged events occurred, the court is required to screen the complaint. Therefore, defendants' request for the court to screen the complaint shall be granted. In addition, good cause appearing, the motion for extension of time shall also be granted.

Based on the foregoing, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants' motion for the court to screen the complaint is GRANTED, and the court shall issue a screening order in due time; and

2. Defendants are GRANTED an extension of time until thirty days from the date of service of the court's screening order in which to file a response to the complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20090313

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.