Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00602/USCOURTS-caed-1_23-cv-00602-2/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TREVON R. KIRKLAND,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. SMITH, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:23-cv-00602-CDB

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S 

FILING OF SEPTEMBER 5, 2024

(Doc. 14) 

Plaintiff Trevon R. Kirkland is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. 

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff initiated this action by filing a complaint in the Sacramento division of this Court 

on April 13, 2023. (Doc. 1.) The action was transferred to the Fresno division on April 19, 2023. 

(Doc. 3.) 

On April 20, 2023, this Court issued its Order to Pay Filing Fee in Full or Submit 

Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (IFP). (Doc. 5.) Plaintiff was directed to respond 

within 45 days by paying the $402 filing fee in full or submitting a completed and signed 

application to proceed IFP. (Id.) 

On June 5, 2023, Plaintiff paid the $402 filing fee in full. (See Docket Entry of 6/5/2023 

[Receipt number 1000000491].) 

Case 1:23-cv-00602-JLT-CDB Document 15 Filed 09/13/24 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

On September 5, 2024, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Motion Requesting ‘Summary 

Judgment’ in Favor of Plaintiff for Failure to Respond.” (Doc. 14.) 

II. DISCUSSION

Briefly stated, Plaintiff states he is “filing the motion for failure to respond to time 

constraints showing substantial facts of ‘guilt,’” noting that he has alleged four severe claims of 

misconduct, and asks the Court “to set a deadline for the Defendants to respond to notices per 

court order.” (Doc. 14.) Plaintiff also requests “Defendants to settle in the amount of $6,500.00.” 

(Id. at 2.) 

Plaintiff is advised his complaint must be screened before the Court issues any order 

concerning service of process. The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners 

seeking relief against a governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the complaint 

is frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks 

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b). (See 

also Doc. 4 at 3 [First Informational Order in Prisoner/Civil Detainee Civil Rights Cases issued 

4/19/2023].) 

The Court recognizes Plaintiff’s complaint has not yet been screened despite the passage 

of more than 18 months. Plaintiff is advised this Court is one of the busiest district courts in the 

nation. All judges in this district carry a heavy caseload and hundreds of prisoner civil rights 

cases are filed in this district each year. Unfortunately, delays are inevitable. 

Only after Plaintiff’s complaint has been screened and found to state cognizable claims 

will the Court issue an order directing service of process to defendants. (Doc. 4 at 3 [“A pro se 

plaintiff may not proceed ... until the Court screens the pro se plaintiff's complaint and finds that 

it states a cognizable claim against named defendants. If the Court does find a cognizable claim 

and the plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis, the Court will direct the United States Marshal 

to initiate service of the complaint on defendants”].) Plaintiff’s complaint will be screened in due 

course. 

Case 1:23-cv-00602-JLT-CDB Document 15 Filed 09/13/24 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

In sum, because Plaintiff’s complaint has not yet been screened, the Court has not directed 

the United States Marshal to serve the complaint on any defendant and no defendant has appeared 

in this action. Therefore, the defendants Plaintiff named in his complaint have not “fail[ed] to 

respond” or missed any Court imposed deadline. Until the Court has had the opportunity to screen 

Plaintiff’s complaint, no further action is warranted. 

III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, for the reasons given above, the Court ORDERS:

1. Plaintiff’s motion filed September 5, 2024 (Doc. 14) is DENIED; and

2. Plaintiff’s complaint will be screened in due course.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 13, 2024 ___________________ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:23-cv-00602-JLT-CDB Document 15 Filed 09/13/24 Page 3 of 3