UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
December 6, 2010
B. SAUNDERS, ET AL.,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael J. United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR SCREENING ORDER AND FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE ANSWER
(ECF No. 2)
Plaintiff Michael Gonzales ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendants removed this action from state court and now request that the Court screen Plaintiff's Complaint in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. That request is GRANTED. The Court will screen Plaintiff's Complaint in due course.
Defendants also ask that they not be required to answer or otherwise defend against this action until thirty days after the screening order is entered.*fn1 Defendants' Request is GRANTED. Defendants shall answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's claims within thirty days of the Court's screening order if claims are found to be cognizable.
In addition, Defendants ask the Court to take judicial notice of prior cases filed by Plaintiff when "deciding whether to grant Plaintiff in forma pauperis status." (ECF No. 2 at 2-3.) Defendants cite prior cases in which the Court has found Plaintiff to be ineligible to proceed in forma pauperis based on his litigation history. However, Defendants paid the $350.00 filing fee when they removed this case from state court. Accordingly, there is no need for the Court to address at this time whether Plaintiff is entitled to proceed in forma pauperis. See Carrea v. California, 2010 WL 3984832, *8 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2010) ("removal of this action rendered plaintiff's Three-Strikes status irrelevant for purposes of the filing fee that otherwise would have been required to be paid in this case.")
IT IS SO ORDERED.