Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01019/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01019-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARCUS BRENT FIELDS,

Plaintiff,

v.

SAMAN SAMADANI, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:24-cv-01019-KES-SKO

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO 

DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS PREMATURE

(Doc. 18)

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO 

DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

DEFAULT AS PREMATURE

(Doc. 19)

14-DAY OBJECTION PERIOD

Plaintiff Marcus Brent Fields, a state prisoner, is proceeding pro se in this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983. 

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a complaint in the United States District Court for 

the Central District of California on August 16, 2024. (Doc. 1.) The action was transferred to this 

Court on August 27, 2024. (Docs. 5 & 6.) 

On August 29, 2024, the Court issued Findings and Recommendations to Deny In Forma 

Pauperis Status. (Doc. 9.) The Court found Plaintiff has incurred four “strikes” pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. 1915(g) and did not meet the imminent danger exception to the statute. (Id. at 2-4.) 

Case 1:24-cv-01019-KES-SKO Document 20 Filed 01/03/25 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Plaintiff timely filed objections on September 16, 2024. (Doc. 12.) The Findings and 

Recommendations remain pending final determination by District Judge Kirk E. Sherriff. 

On December 2, 2024, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Movement for Summary 

Judgment – Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(b); Exhibit Refresher – read & shredd – denie 13, 14, 15.” (Doc. 

18.) On December 30, 2024, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Petition – For Default against 

Defendants et al – seeking instant monetary relief for pain(s) and suffering(s); Demand for Jury 

trial double monetary relief if this default is not answered; Plaintiff – request Docket sheet.” 

(Doc. 19.) 

II. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff’s motions are premature. First, the Court has not yet screened Plaintiff’s 

complaint. Screening of a prisoner complaint is required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). This Court is 

one of the busiest district courts in the nation, and delays are inevitable.1 Until Plaintiff’s 

complaint has been screened, summary judgment is premature. See, e.g., Baker v. German, No. 

1:16-cv-01873-AWI-SAB (PC), 2017 WL 531937, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2017) (recommending 

summary judgment be denied where complaint not yet screened and service of complaint not yet 

authorized), recommendation adopted 2017 WL 1427028 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 21, 2017); see also 

Dews v. County of Kern, No. 14-16423, 599 Fed. App’x 681, 682 (9th Cir. Mar. 27, 2015) 

(finding district court properly denied Dews’s motions for summary judgment as premature 

because a court must first screen a prisoner’s complaint). 

Second, discovery has not yet commenced. Although Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure allows a party to file a motion for summary judgment “at any time,” the rule also 

allows the court, as is just, to deny the motion or order a continuance for the opposing party to 

pursue discovery. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56. Here, no defendant has appeared in this action,2and 

defendants have not had an opportunity to pursue discovery. See, e.g., Williams v. Yuan Chen, 

1 As Plaintiff was advised in this Court’s First Informational Order In Prisoner/Civil Detainee Civil Rights 

Case, issued August 27, 2024, “the Court has an extremely large number of pro se plaintiff civil rights 

cases pending before it, and delay is inevitable.” (See Doc. 7 at 3.)

2 Once the Court has determined that the complaint states a cognizable claim or claims, it “will direct the 

United States Marshal to initiate service of the complaint on defendants.” (See Doc. 7 at 3, 4.) 

Case 1:24-cv-01019-KES-SKO Document 20 Filed 01/03/25 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

No. S-10-1292 CKD P, 2011 WL 4354533, at * 3 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 16, 2011) (denying plaintiff's 

summary judgment motion as premature where defendant had not yet filed an answer and the 

court had not issued a discovery order); Moore v. Hubbard, No. CIV S-06-2187 FCD EFB P, 

2009 WL 688897, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2009) (recommending that pre-discovery motion for 

summary judgment be denied as premature); see also Vining v. Runyon, 99 F.3d 1056, 1058 (11th 

Cir. 1996) (“A premature decision on summary judgment impermissibly deprives the 

[defendants] of their right to utilize the discovery process to discover the facts necessary to justify 

their opposition to the motion”).

Plaintiff’s motion for default is also premature. As noted above, Plaintiff’s complaint has 

not yet been screened. Therefore, no defendant has been served and no responsive pleading is 

due. Baker, 2017 WL 531937, at *1 (“Should Plaintiff’s complaint proceed beyond the screening 

stage, the Court will order service, and issue an order setting a schedule for discovery and 

dispositive motions”); see also Banks v. S/CO Lima, No. 2:22-cv-01622-CDS-BNW, 2022 WL 

22246748, at *1 (D. Nev. Dec. 14, 2022) (denying motion for entry of default as premature); 

Cranford v. Smith, No. 1:13-cv-01555-GSA-PC, 2013 WL 6503301, at *1-2 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 11, 

2013) (denying plaintiff’s motion for default judgment as premature because defendant had not 

yet been served); Askari v. Kerestes, No. 1:12-CV-2042, 2013 WL 1703560, at *2 (M.D. Penn. 

Mar. 22, 2013) (recommending default judgment be denied as premature because second 

amended complaint not yet screened or served), recommendation adopted 2013 WL 1703580 

(M.D. Penn. Apr. 19, 2013).

Plaintiff is advised that until the assigned district judge has ruled on the pending Findings 

and Recommendations to deny in forma pauperis status and the undersigned has screened the 

complaint, summary judgment or default is premature. Finally, as a one-time courtesy, the Court 

will direct the Clerk of the Court to send Plaintiff a copy of the docket sheet for this action. 

III. ORDER AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Accordingly, the Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to send Plaintiff a copy of the 

docket sheet for this action as a one-time courtesy. 

Further, based upon the foregoing, the Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS:

Case 1:24-cv-01019-KES-SKO Document 20 Filed 01/03/25 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

1. Plaintiff’s summary judgment motion (Doc. 18) be DENIED as premature; and

2. Plaintiff’s motion for default (Doc. 19) be DENIED as premature. 

These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District 

Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days

after being served with a copy of these Findings and Recommendations, a party may file written 

objections with the Court. Local Rule 304(b). The document should be captioned, “Objections to 

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations” and shall not exceed fifteen (15) pages

without leave of Court and good cause shown. The Court will not consider exhibits attached to 

the Objections. To the extent a party wishes to refer to any exhibit(s), the party should reference 

the exhibit in the record by its CM/ECF document and page number, when possible, or otherwise 

reference the exhibit with specificity. Any pages filed in excess of the fifteen (15) page limitation 

may be disregarded by the District Judge when reviewing these Findings and Recommendations 

under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l)(C). A party’s failure to file any objections within the specified time 

may result in the waiver of certain rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 

(9th Cir. 2014).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 2, 2025 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:24-cv-01019-KES-SKO Document 20 Filed 01/03/25 Page 4 of 4