Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01958/USCOURTS-caed-2_21-cv-01958-7/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STEVEN R. RODRIGUEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

RYAN TAIAROL, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:21-cv-1958 DB P

ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff claims that he was improperly classified as a gang member in prison, and 

after his release the wrongful gang classification was used by police to obtain search and arrest 

warrants. Presently before the court is defendant City of Stockton’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 

24) and plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file an opposition to the motion to dismiss 

(ECF No. 27).

The court screened and dismissed plaintiff’s original complaint. (ECF No. 16.) 

Thereafter, plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. (ECF No. 22.) Before the court had the 

opportunity to screen plaintiff’s amended complaint, defendant City of Stockton filed a motion to 

dismiss. (ECF No. 24.) Therein, the City of Stockton argues that the complaint should be 

dismissed because plaintiff’s claims are barred by the statute of limitations and Heck v. 

Case 2:21-cv-01958-SCR Document 28 Filed 03/09/23 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

Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994).1 Plaintiff has requested a thirty-day extension of time 

to file an opposition to the motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 27.)

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 or an officer or employee 

of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Thus, defendant’s motion to dismiss is 

premature and will be denied, without prejudice to its renewal if the court determines service is 

appropriate. See Gibbons v. Arpaio, No. CV 07-1456 PHX SMM (JCG), 2007 WL 2990151, at 

*2 (D. AZ. Oct. 11, 2007) (dismissing motion to dismiss filed before screening order as

premature); Rios v. Dragon, No. 2:20-cv-00146 ADA HBK (PC), 2022 WL 11324595, at *3 

(E.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2022) (same). The undersigned will further deny plaintiff’s motion for an 

extension of time as moot and screen the first amended complaint in due course.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant City of Stockton’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 24) is denied without 

prejudice; and 

2. Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time (ECF No. 27) is denied as moot.

Dated: March 8, 2023

DB:12

DB/DB Prisoner Inbox/Civil Rights/R/rodr1958.mtd+eot

1

In Heck, the Supreme Court held that a plaintiff cannot maintain a § 1983 action to recover 

damages for “harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render [his] conviction or 

sentence invalid” when his sentence and conviction have not previously been reversed, expunged, 

declared invalid, or called into question upon issuance of a writ of habeas corpus by a federal 

court.

Case 2:21-cv-01958-SCR Document 28 Filed 03/09/23 Page 2 of 2