UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
August 23, 2011
STEPHEN MAYBERG, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Dennis L. Beck United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR SCREENING AS MOOT (DOC. 14) ORDER DENYING EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSIVE PLEADING (DOC. 14)
Plaintiff Cory Hoch ("Plaintiff") is a civil detainee in the custody of the California Department of Mental Health ("DMH"). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action by filing his complaint on December 6, 2010. Doc. 1. On May 27, 2011, the Court found service of the complaint appropriate and forwarded service documents to Plaintiff for completion and return. Plaintiff complied with the Court's order, and on June 9, 2011, the Court directed the United States Marshal to effect service of process on Defendants Pamela Ahlin and Stephen Mayberg. On August 9, 2011, Defendant Ahlin's waiver of service was returned executed. On August 16, 2011, Defendant Ahlin filed a request that the Court screen Plaintiff's complaint. Doc. 14.
Defendant requests that the Court screen Plaintiff's complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). This request is denied. First, Plaintiff is not a prisoner. Section 1915A applies to prisoners only. Second, the Court specifically stated in its May 27, 2011 order that it had screened Plaintiff's complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The Court found that at this time it cannot find that Plaintiff does not state a claim against Defendants Ahlin and Mayberg for violation of the Fourth Amendment.
If Defendant Ahlin's purpose was to seek an extension of time to file a responsive pleading, Defendant needed to only file a motion for extension of time, rather than waste time filing a request for screening. Additionally, the Court will not grant Defendant an extension of time. Defendant has made no showing what good cause exists for an extension of time to be granted, as required under Rule 6(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.