Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Brannon v. Kadevari

March 30, 2010

GREGORY W. BRANNON, PLAINTIFF,
v.
R. KADEVARI, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This proceeding was referred to this court by Local Rule 302 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and is before the undersigned pursuant to plaintiff's consent. See 28 U.S.C. § 636; see also E.D. Cal. Local Rules, Appx. A, at (k)(4).

I. Request to Proceed In Forma Pauperis

Plaintiff has requested leave to proceedin forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Dckt. No. 10. Plaintiff's application makes the showing required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1) and (2). Accordingly, by separate order, the court directs the agency having custody of plaintiff to collect and forward the appropriate monthly payments for the filing fee as set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(1) and (2).

II. Screening Order

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court shall review "a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity." 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). "On review, the court shall identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint (1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief." Id. § 1915A(b).

Pursuant to § 1915A, the court has reviewed plaintiff's amended complaint, which supercedes the original complaint. The court finds that, for the limited purposes of § 1915A screening, the amended complaint states cognizable Eighth Amendment claims for relief against all defendants (Shackford, Mihelich, Rainey, Kadevari*fn1 and Purcell).

III. Plaintiff's Motions

On May 20, 2009, plaintiff filed a request that the court order Solano County officials to allow plaintiff to continue working on his legal affairs with another inmate who has been approved to assist plaintiff. Dckt. No. 5. Plaintiff's motion is denied, as there were no court imposed deadlines at the time of the filing and it is not evident why plaintiff needed the assistance of another inmate.

Additionally, plaintiff requested that the court stay this action while he undergoes a "nerve graft surgery." Dckt. No. 6. Subsequently, plaintiff requested that the court lift any stay that had been imposed. Dckt. No. 9. It appears that plaintiff no longer seeks a stay. Thus, his motion will be denied as unnecessary.

Accordingly, it hereby is ordered that:

1. Plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis is granted.

2. Plaintiff shall pay the statutory filing fee of $350. All payments shall be collected in accordance with the notice to the Solano County Sheriff's Office filed concurrently herewith.

3. Service is appropriate for defendants Shackford, Mihelich, Rainey, Kadevari and Purcell.

4. The Clerk of the Court shall send plaintiff five USM-285 forms, one summons, an instruction sheet and one copy of the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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