Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00941/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00941-8/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

SAIYEZ AHMED,

 Plaintiff,

v.

M. MARTEL, et al.,

 Defendants.

Case No. 1:13-cv-00941-DAD-MJS (PC)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

REQUEST FOR SCREENING ORDER 

AND EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE 

RESPONSIVE PLEADING

(ECF No. 43)

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court screened Plaintiff’s first amended 

complaint and found that it stated cognizable First Amendment retaliation claims against 

Defendants Martel, Davis, Shannon, Cano, and Combs. (ECF No. 13.) Defendants 

moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 17.) The motion 

was granted and Plaintiff was given leave to amend. (ECF No. 32.) Plaintiff filed his 

second amended complaint on October 5, 2016. (ECF No. 42.) 

Defendants request that the Court screen Plaintiff’s complaint in accordance with 

28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The request is HEREBY GRANTED. The Court will screen 

Plaintiff’s complaint in due course.

Defendants also ask that they not be required to answer or otherwise defend this 

action, and that no other defendants be served, until the screening order issues. This

request is HEREBY GRANTED. Defendants shall respond to Plaintiff’s amended 

complaint within thirty days of the order adopting the Court’s screening order, if any 

Case 1:13-cv-00941-DAD-MJS Document 44 Filed 11/09/16 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

claims are found to be cognizable. The Court will issue further orders regarding the 

service of additional defendants, if appropriate, after screening the complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 8, 2016 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00941-DAD-MJS Document 44 Filed 11/09/16 Page 2 of 2