Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06717/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06717-2/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LADELL STEPHENS,

Plaintiff,

v.

CASTRO, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 04 6717 AWI SMS P 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO

DENY MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT (Doc. 17.) 

Ladell Stephens (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On July 13, 2005, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Compel Discovery. The Court denied

Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel on July 14, 2005, and referred Plaintiff to the Court’s informational

order issued on February 24, 2005, that described various requirements and procedures that will

occur during the course of the instant proceedings. 

In that Order, Plaintiff was informed that the Court must first conduct a preliminary

screening of the case to determine whether the complaint states any cognizable claims for relief

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Only after the Court has made a preliminary determination that the

case can proceed, will the Court direct the Complaint to be served on any defendants. Thus,

until such time as the Court has screened the Complaint and ordered it served, no discovery may

be had or responses made by Defendants. 

Despite this information, Plaintiff has filed the instant Motion for Summary Judgment

Case 1:04-cv-06717-AWI -SMS Document 19 Filed 09/07/05 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

seeking Judgment because Defendants have not filed a Response. As noted above, no response is

required by Defendants until such time as the Court ORDERS the complaint served. Thus,

Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment must be denied. Plaintiff is forewarned that the filing

of unwarranted motions serve only to divert the Court’s attention away from its other tasks, like

screening of the case. The Court has hundreds of similar cases filed by litigants such as Plaintiff

and thus, there is somewhat of a delay in processing the cases. Unnecessary Motions again only

further delay the process. Plaintiff is advised to refer to the Court’s informational order should

he wish to know what will take place in a case such as his. 

RECOMMENDATION

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

DENIED as no response is required of Defendants at this time. 

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 THIRTY (30) 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: September 6, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06717-AWI -SMS Document 19 Filed 09/07/05 Page 2 of 2