UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
September 26, 2012
JOHN WILLIAM ROBINSON,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Jennifer L. Thurston United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DISREGARDING REQUEST FOR SCREENING ORDER AND DISREGARDING REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE A RESPONSIVE PLEADING TO THE OPERATIVE COMPLAINT (Doc. 19)
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pending before the Court is Defendant Enenmoh's Request for a Screening Order and for an Extension of Time to File Defendant's Responsive Pleading. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will DISREGARD both of Defendant's motions.
Plaintiff originally filed this matter in the Kings County Superior Court on December 14, 2011. (Doc. 1). Defendant Enenmoh was served with the Complaint on January 6, 2012 and subsequently removed the matter to this Court in February 2012.*fn1 (Doc. 1 and 19). On April 9, 2012, the Court issued an initial screening order. (Doc. 11). In that Order, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's Complaint with leave to amend. (Doc. 11). Plaintiff then filed his First Amended Complaint on April 17, 2012. 2 (Doc. 17). 3
As the Court set forth in its April 9, 2010 Order, the Court is required to review a case in which 4 a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and dismiss any 5 portion thereof that is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or 6 seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). If 7 the Court determines the complaint fails to state a claim, leave to amend should be granted to the 8 extent that the deficiencies in the pleading can be cured by amendment. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 9 1122, 1127-1128 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). The Court has not yet screened Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, but will do so in due course. Once the screening process is completed, the Court will order any remaining defendants to be served with the operative complaint and will order Defendant Enenmoh to file a responsive pleading.
Because the Court is required to screen Plaintiff's complaint and has already begun that process Defendant Enenmoh's Request for a Screening Order is DISREGARDED as moot. Likewise, his request for an Extension of Time to File Defendant's Responsive Pleading is DISREGARDED because Defendant Enenmoh need not file any responsive pleading until ordered to do so by this Court. ed
IT IS SO ORDERED.