Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01757/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01757-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

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 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 13, 2015, Plaintiff filed a document requesting that the court 

enter default judgment against all Defendants on the basis that the case has not yet been screened. 

(Doc. 7). 

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 

governmental entity and/or against an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 

1915A(a). Plaintiff’s complaint, or any portion thereof, is subject to dismissal if it is frivolous or 

malicious, if it fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or if it seeks monetary relief 

from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2); 28 U.S.C. § 

1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). The Court will direct the United States Marshal to serve Plaintiff’s complaint only 

after the Court has screened the complaint and determined that it contains a cognizable claim for relief 

against the named defendant. Plaintiff’s complaint is currently in the screening stage and has not been 

MAURICE HUNT,

 Plaintiff,

v.

ELANA S. LANDAU; MICHAEL S. FRYE; 

NICHOLAS POTTRATZ; DETECTIVE 

DAVID FRIES; FRESNO COUNTY 

SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT,

Defendants.

/

CASE NO. 1:14-cv-1757 --- BAM

ORDER REGARDING MOTION FOR 

DEFAULT JUDGMENT

(Doc. 7)

Case 1:14-cv-01757-BAM Document 8 Filed 04/21/15 Page 1 of 2
2

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

served any defendant. Therefore, the motion for default judgment was not properly filed and it will be

disregarded as it is premature. The Court is aware of Plaintiff’s case and will screen the complaint in 

due course. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 20, 2015 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01757-BAM Document 8 Filed 04/21/15 Page 2 of 2