Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00157/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00157-0/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID LEE WHITE,

Plaintiff,

v.

WOODFORD, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 05 -0157 OWW LJO P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO

DENY MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT (Doc. 10.) 

 David Lee White (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the instant action on

February 4, 2005. 

On March 29, 2005, Plaintiff moved for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff contends that he is

entitled to relief because the Defendants have not defended the action. Plaintiff was informed in

the Informational Order served on him by the Court that the Court must initially screen the case

to determine whether it states a cognizable claim for relief. After screening, if the Court finds

that there are cognizable claims for relief, the Court will Order Plaintiff to complete information

so that the U.S. Marshal can serve Defendants with Plaintiff’s complaint. Only then will the

Defendants make an appearance and file an Answer. Here, however, as no screening has yet

taken place, there has been no service of the complaint on the Defendants and Defendants have

not yet appeared in the action. Thus, any Motion for Summary Judgment is premature. 

The Court recognizes that Plaintiff wishes this action to proceed speedily. However, the

Case 1:05-cv-00157-OWW -LJO Document 11 Filed 03/30/06 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

2

Court has hundreds of similar cases pending that also require the Court’s time and attention. As

such, the Court proceeds with the cases in the order that they are filed. Plaintiff can rest assured

that the Court has not forgotten about his case nor is it lost. The Court will proceed with the

screening in due course. Plaintiff is advised to keep the Court apprised of his current address so

as to receive all orders or pleadings filed in the case. 

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the Motion for Summary Judgment be

DENIED without prejudice as premature. 

The Court HEREBY ORDERS that these Findings and Recommendations be submitted

to the United States District Court Judge assigned to this action pursuant to the provisions of 28

U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States

District Court, Eastern District of California. Within TWENTY (20) days after being served

with a copy of these Findings and Recommendations, any party may file written Objections with

the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Replies to the Objections shall be served

and filed within TEN (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after service of the

Objections. The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file Objections within the specified time

may waive the right to appeal the Order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153

(9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 29, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00157-OWW -LJO Document 11 Filed 03/30/06 Page 2 of 2