UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
April 24, 2013
K. ALICESON, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Michael J. Seng United States Magistrate Judge
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRIORITY SCREENING OF SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT (ECF No. 21)
Plaintiff Eric Wheeler, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action on May 25, 2012 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on June 7, 2012 (ECF No. 7) without the original Complaint having been screened by the Court. The Court dismissed the First Amended Complaint on January 3, 2013, for failure to state a claim, but gave leave to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 15.) Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint on January 22, 2013. (ECF No. 17.) The Court has not yet screened the Second Amended Complaint.
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion filed April 18, 2013, which appears to seek priority screening of his Second Amended Complaint. (ECF No. 21.)
The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally "frivolous or malicious," that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). The Court will direct the United States Marshal to serve Plaintiff's Amended Complaint only after the Court has screened it and determined that it contains cognizable claims for relief against the named Defendants. "Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (ii).
The Court is aware of Plaintiff's action and his Amended Compliant is in line for screening. However, the Court has a large number of prisoner civil rights cases pending before it and will screen Plaintiff's Amended Complaint in due course.
According, for the reasons stated is it HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for priority screening of his Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 21) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.