Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00677/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00677-12/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARCELLUS ALEXANDER GREENE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

FERNANDO GONZALEZ ET AL., 

Defendants. 

No. CV 08-00677 CRB (PR)

ORDER RE ADDITIONAL CASE

SCREENING UNDER 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A

Plaintiff, Marcellus (Marvellous) Greene, is a prisoner in the custody of the California

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint on

June 24, 2013. Dkt. 55. Defendant Gonzalez now requests that the Court screen the Third

Amended Complaint for cognizable claims under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Greene argues that

because the Court previously screened Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint and

concluded that it stated a claim, it need not screen the Third Amended Complaint. See dkt.

59. Gonzalez responds that he is newly named in the Third Amended Complaint, and the

new complaint asserts five additional claims that were not previously presented to, nor

screened by, this Court. See dkt. 60. 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court is required to review all prisoner lawsuits

seeking redress from government employees. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a). The Court must dismiss

any claim that is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be

Case 1:08-cv-00677-CRB Document 61 Filed 07/29/13 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

G:\CRBALL\2008\677\Order Screening Third Amend.wpd 2

granted, or which seeks monetary relief from a Defendant who is immune from such relief. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)-(2). 

Neither party has pointed this Court to statutory language or case law specifically

addressing whether another § 1915A review is required in this situation. The Court

concludes that the legal dispute is moot, because a further § 1915A review would not result

in the dismissal of any claims. Defendants remain free to move to dismiss any or all of the

claims on the grounds referenced in section § 1915A.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 29, 2013

 

CHARLES R. BREYER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:08-cv-00677-CRB Document 61 Filed 07/29/13 Page 2 of 2