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.

Rickey Adams v. J. Yates

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


September 2, 2011

RICKEY ADAMS, PLAINTIFF,
v.
J. YATES, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael J. Seng United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SETTING DISCOVERY AND PRE-TRIAL DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT (ECF Nos. 17 and 18)

Plaintiff Rickey Adams ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action in state court. It was removed to this Court by Defendants.

Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Setting Discovery and Pre-Trial Dispositive Motions, in which Plaintiff also requests an order requiring Defendants to answer Plaintiff's Complaint and for sanctions. (ECF No. 17.) Also before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion to file an Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 18.)

I. MOTION FOR SETTING DISCOVERY AND PRE-TRIAL DISPOSITIVE MOTIONS

Plaintiff has filed a Motion asking that Defendants be ordered to file an answer and be sanctioned; he also asks the Court to set a discovery and pre-trial dispositive motion schedule. (ECF No. 17.)

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(A)(a). The Court has not yet screened Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(A)(a). The Court screens complaints in the order in which they are filed and strives to avoid delays. However, there are hundreds of prisoner civil rights cases presently pending before this Court and delays are unavoidable. The Court will get to Plaintiff's claim in due course.

Defendants need respond to Plaintiff's Complaint only if and after the Court enters its screening order finding that Plaintiff has stated a cognizable claim. In that event, the Court will enter a discovery and scheduling order.

Sanctions are not warranted.

Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion is DENIED.

II. MOTION TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT

Plaintiff has also filed a Motion to File an Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 18.) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides that a pleading may be amended once as a matter of course so long as no defendant has served a responsive pleading. In this case, no Defendant has yet served a responsive pleading.

Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file an amended complaint not later than October 5, 2011.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

ci4d6

20110902

© 1992-2011 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.