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.

Strong v. Elliot

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


April 3, 2009

GEORGE BERRY STRONG, PLAINTIFF,
v.
KENNETH ELLIOT, DEFENDANT.

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 George Berry Strong ("plaintiff"), a state prisoner proceeding pro se. This action was initiated by civil complaint filed by plaintiff at the Kings County Superior Court on January 16, 2009 (Case #09C0022). On March 30, 2009, defendant Elliot ("defendant") 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 defendant indicates that defendant received a copy of the complaint on February 26, 2009. Within the Notice of Removal, defendant filed a request for the court to screen plaintiff's complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and grant defendant an extension of time in which to file a responsive pleading.

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 his rights to be free from cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth Amendment were violated when defendant Elliot, a correctional counselor employed by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR"), intimidated, harassed, and abused him. Plaintiff also alleges that his rights to be free from slavery were violated by defendant Elliot when he failed to adequately classify plaintiff, falsified medical documents, and forced plaintiff to perform work details that caused him bodily harm. Because the CDCR is a California state entity, defendant was employed at a state prison, and plaintiff was a prisoner when the alleged events occurred, the court is required to screen the complaint. Therefore, defendant's request for the court to screen the complaint shall be granted. In addition, good cause appearing, the request for an extension of time shall also be granted.

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

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

2. Defendant is 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.

20090403

© 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.