Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01441/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01441-4/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LOUIS RICHARD FRESQUEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

SOLARIO, et. al., 

Defendants.

 /

CV F 05 1441 AWI LJO P 

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF EXTENSION

OF TIME TO SUBMIT AMENDED

COMPLAINT OR INFORM THE COURT HE

WISHES TO WITHDRAW THE ACTION 

 Louis Richard Fresquez (“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 November 15, 2005. On December 26, 2006, Plaintiff

filed a Notice demanding that his case be heard under the Americans with Disabilities Act

(“ADA”). The court issued an Order informing Plaintiff that the Court was required to screen the

Complaint under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”) and that it had yet to determine

whether it stated a cognizable claim under Section 1983 or the ADA. The Court noted that

Plaintiff had filed many cases in this Court and was aware that he must first allege facts stating a

claim under the ADA before the case would proceed. 

On January 8, 2007, Plaintiff filed another “DEMAND” for Americans With Disabilities

Case 1:05-cv-01441-AWI-GSA Document 15 Filed 03/22/07 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

Act Hearing. The Court screened Plaintiff’s Complaint on January 18, 2007, and dismissed it

with leave to amend informing Plaintiff of the deficiencies and the relevant law so that Plaintiff

could amend to state a cognizable claim either under Section 1983 or the ADA. Plaintiff was

granted thirty days to comply. Instead of submitting an Amended Complaint, however, Plaintiff

filed a “Responce [sic]” on February 13, 2007. Plaintiff complains in this pleading that the Court

is discriminating against him because it was refusing to apply 42 U.S.C. 12132 and screening his

case. Plaintiff alleges that his case does not require screening. Plaintiff also alleges that Rule 8of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure does not apply. 

Plaintiff is mistaken. As stated in the Court’s Order dismissing with leave to amend, any

complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or

employee of a governmental entity is subject to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) of the Prison Litigation

Reform Act. This simply means that the Court must screen the case to ensure that it states

cognizable claims for relief before the Complaint can be served on the opposing party. This is

the sole purpose of the Court’s Order dismissing with leave to amend. In examining the

allegations made in Plaintiff’s Complaint, the Court provided Plaintiff with what it determined

might be the law relevant to the facts alleged. It is up to Plaintiff to decide which claims he

wants to bring, the fact that the law was provided was only to aid Plaintiff in formulating his

claims. The Court also provided Plaintiff with the law under the Americans with Disabilities Act

as Plaintiff appears to be seeking relief under the ADA. However, the Court must still screen the

Complaint and if Plaintiff fails to allege facts that support an ADA claim, dismissal is warranted

under the PLRA. As stated in the Court’s prior Orders, Plaintiff is fully aware of this Court’s

screening requirement. The fact that Plaintiff is seeking relief under the ADA does not render

the PLRA inapplicable. 

In addition, the Court notes that Plaintiff did not complete the form complaint. The

Complaint consisted almost entirely of exhibits. It is Plaintiff’s responsibility to set forth his

claims in a clear manner. The Court cannot read all of the Complaints and then make a

determination as to what kind of claim he states. That duty lies with the Plaintiff. 

The Court will grant Plaintiff an extension of time to complete the form Complaint and

Case 1:05-cv-01441-AWI-GSA Document 15 Filed 03/22/07 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

amend the Complaint that is on file or inform the Court that he wishes to withdraw his

Complaint and terminate the action. Should Plaintiff fail to do either within the allotted time

frame, the Court will have no alternative but to dismiss the Complaint for failure to state a claim

upon which relief can be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2) (providing that the Court must

dismiss a complaint that fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.) 

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. Plaintiff is GRANTED thirty days from the date of service of this Order to submit

an Amended Complaint curing the deficiencies outlined by the Court in its

January 18, 2007, Order or notify the Court that he wishes to withdraw his

Complaint and terminate the action. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 21, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01441-AWI-GSA Document 15 Filed 03/22/07 Page 3 of 3