Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-01259/USCOURTS-caed-2_24-cv-01259-4/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM LYLE NIBLE,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEFF MACOMBER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 2:24-cv-01259-DJC-CSK

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ 

REQUEST TO SCREEN FIRST AMENDED 

COMPLAINT AND STAY PROCEEDINGS

(ECF No. 21, 26)

Plaintiff William Lyle Nible is proceeding in this action pro se.1 Pending before the 

Court is Defendants J. Macomber, T. Dorsey, S. Reyes, C. Lugar, H. E. Moseley, R. St. 

Louis-Franklin, R. Broomfield’s (“Defendants”) motion to stay proceedings pending 

Defendants’ request for screening of Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c). (ECF Nos. 21, 26.) For the 

reasons stated below, the Court DENIES Defendants’ request for screening Plaintiff’s 

FAC (ECF No. 21) and DENIES Defendants’ motion to stay proceedings (ECF No. 26).

1 This matter proceeds before the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, Fed. R. 

Civ. P. 72, and Local Rule 302(c). A magistrate judge has authority to determine a 

party’s motion to stay civil proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). S.E.C. v. CMKM 

Diamonds, Inc., 729 F.3d 1248, 1260 (9th Cir. 2013) (holding motion to stay civil 

proceedings is a nondispositive motion that may be determined by a magistrate judge 

under § 636(b)(1)(A)). 

Case 2:24-cv-01259-DJC-CSK Document 44 Filed 01/15/25 Page 1 of 3
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

In their request for screening, Defendants argue Plaintiff’s FAC requires screening 

pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b) and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(2) because Plaintiff “remains 

incarcerated while he is on parole” and continues to remain in “legal custody of the 

California Department of Corrections through the remainder of his term” as an “inmateturned parolee.” Defs. Mot. Screen at 2 (ECF No. 21). The Court disagrees. 

“[A] court may screen a complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A only if, at the 

time the plaintiff files the complaint, he is incarcerated or detained in any facility because 

he is accused of, convicted of, sentenced for, or adjudicated delinquent for, violations of 

criminal law or the terms and conditions of parole, probation, pretrial release, or 

diversionary program.” Olivas v. Nevada ex rel. Dep’t of Corr., 856 F.3d 1281, 1284 (9th 

Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks omitted). At the time of the filing of Plaintiff’s 

Complaint, Plaintiff was not a prisoner. See ECF No. 1. “28 U.S.C. § 1915A applies only 

to claims brought by individuals incarcerated at the time they file their complaints.” 

Olivas, 856 F.3d at 1282 (concluding that former prisoner who had been released from 

custody before filing suit was not a “prisoner” under the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act).

Additionally, Defendants do not argue that Plaintiff was incarcerated at the time of his 

initial filing, rather, Defendants argue that Plaintiff’s parole is akin to being “in custody” 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Defs. Mot. Screen at 2. As a result, the mandatory initial 

screening of complaints brought by prisoners under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A is not applicable 

to Plaintiff’s FAC. Therefore, the Court DENIES Defendants’ request for screening. 

Because the Court finds that screening of the FAC is not applicable here, the Court 

DENIES Defendants’ motion to stay proceedings pending Defendants’ request for 

screening as moot. 

Further, the Court notes that Defendant H. E. Moseley has filed an Answer. (ECF 

No. 16.) Defendants J. Macomber, T. Dorsey, S. Reyes, C. Lugar, R. St. Louis-Franklin, 

and R. Broomfield have not filed their pleadings responding to the FAC. See Docket. 

Accordingly, on the Court’s own motion, the Court extends Defendants J. Macomber, T. 

Dorsey, S. Reyes, C. Lugar, R. St. Louis-Franklin, and R. Broomfield’s deadline to 

Case 2:24-cv-01259-DJC-CSK Document 44 Filed 01/15/25 Page 2 of 3
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

respond to the FAC to thirty (30) days from the date of this Order. 

For the reasons provided above, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ request for screening (ECF No. 21) is DENIED;

2. Defendants’ motion to stay (ECF No. 26) is DENIED as moot; and

3. Defendants J. Macomber, T. Dorsey, S. Reyes, C. Lugar, R. St. LouisFranklin, and R. Broomfield must file their response to the FAC within thirty 

(30) days of this Order.

Dated: January 15, 2025

4, nibl1259.24

Case 2:24-cv-01259-DJC-CSK Document 44 Filed 01/15/25 Page 3 of 3