Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00265/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-00265-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

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

BRANDON BROTHERTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

ZUNIGA, et al., 

Defendant.

Case No. 1:16-cv-00265 DLB PC

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ 

MOTION TO DISMISS WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE

(Document 3)

Plaintiff Brandon Brotherton (“Plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se in this 

action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 

388 (1971), which provides a remedy for violation of civil rights by federal actors. Plaintiff filed 

this action in on January 11, 2016, in the Court of Common Pleas of Portage County, Ohio. 

Defendants removed the action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio 

on February 5, 2016. Defendants also filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 12(b)(2), 12(b)(5) and 12(b)(6).

On February 24, 2016, the action was transferred to this Court, as the events at issue occurred 

while Plaintiff was incarcerated at F.C.I. Mendota.

It is this Court’s practice to first screen all prisoner complaints pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915A(a)1to determine whether the complaint states any cognizable claims for relief. The 

 

1 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer 

or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).

Case 1:16-cv-00265-LJO-DLB Document 9 Filed 02/29/16 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

majority of cases are screened prior to service on defendants, and the Court’s screening order 

determines whether service is appropriate. In removal cases such as this, however, Defendants have 

already appeared in the action. Nonetheless, the Court proceeds with the screening requirement of 

section 1915A(a). If and when the Court finds that the complaint states a claim, the Court will order 

Defendants to file a responsive pleading.

Accordingly, Defendants’ motion to dismiss is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 26, 2016 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-00265-LJO-DLB Document 9 Filed 02/29/16 Page 2 of 2