Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-02258/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-02258-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 560
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Civil Detainee - Conditions of Confinement
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

CORY HOCH,

Plaintiff,

v.

STEPHEN MAYBERG, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:10-CV-02258-DLB PC

ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR

SCREENING AS MOOT (DOC. 14)

ORDER DENYING EXTENSION OF TIME

TO FILE RESPONSIVE PLEADING (DOC.

14)

Plaintiff Cory Hoch (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee in the custody of the California

Department of Mental Health (“DMH”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action by filing his

complaint on December 6, 2010. Doc. 1. On May 27, 2011, the Court found service of the

complaint appropriate and forwarded service documents to Plaintiff for completion and return. 

Plaintiff complied with the Court’s order, and on June 9, 2011, the Court directed the United

States Marshal to effect service of process on Defendants Pamela Ahlin and Stephen Mayberg. 

On August 9, 2011, Defendant Ahlin’s waiver of service was returned executed. On August 16,

2011, Defendant Ahlin filed a request that the Court screen Plaintiff’s complaint. Doc. 14.

Defendant requests that the Court screen Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1915A(a). This request is denied. First, Plaintiff is not a prisoner. Section 1915A applies to

prisoners only. Second, the Court specifically stated in its May 27, 2011 order that it had

screened Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The Court found that at this

time it cannot find that Plaintiff does not state a claim against Defendants Ahlin and Mayberg for

1

Case 1:10-cv-02258-AWI-DLB Document 15 Filed 08/23/11 Page 1 of 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

violation of the Fourth Amendment.

If Defendant Ahlin’s purpose was to seek an extension of time to file a responsive

pleading, Defendant needed to only file a motion for extension of time, rather than waste time

filing a request for screening. Additionally, the Court will not grant Defendant an extension of

time. Defendant has made no showing what good cause exists for an extension of time to be

granted, as required under Rule 6(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 23, 2011 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:10-cv-02258-AWI-DLB Document 15 Filed 08/23/11 Page 2 of 2