Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00184/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-00184-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OTIS THOMAS,

Plaintiff,

 v.

IMAM ABDUL MALIK SAAFIR, et

al.,

Defendants. _______________________________ 

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

) 

No. C 06-0184 MMC (PR) 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

SCREEN; GRANTING EXTENSION

OF TIME TO FILE 

DISPOSITIVE MOTION 

(Docket No. 9)

On January 11, 2006, plaintiff, a California prisoner currently incarcerated at Salinas

Valley State Prison (“SVSP”) and proceeding pro se, filed the above-titled civil rights action

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Imam Abdul Malik Saafir (“Saafir”), Sergeant M. J. Kircher

(“Kircher”), and Captain G. Ponder (“Ponder”), all SVSP officials. Plaintiff alleges said

defendants, between November 19, 2004 and December 3, 2004, denied him “Jumah”

religious services mandated by his Muslim faith. 

On May 11, 2006, after reviewing the claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915A, the Court

ordered the complaint served on defendants, and ordered defendants to file, within 60 days, a

dispositive motion or a notice that they were of the opinion that such a motion is not

warranted in this case. Thereafter, on June 13, 2006, plaintiff amended the complaint, again

naming the above defendants. In the amended complaint, plaintiff alleges defendants

continue to deny him access to Jumah services. 

Now before the Court is defendants’ Motion Requesting that the Court Screen

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, filed June 16, 2006. Additionally,

Case 3:06-cv-00184-MMC Document 11 Filed 06/30/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

defendants request a 60-day extension of time in which to comply, if necessary, with the

Court’s order of May 11, 2006. 

Good cause appearing, defendants’ motion is GRANTED and the Court rules as

follows:

For the reasons described in the Court’s order of May 11, 2006, the allegations of the

Amended Complaint state a cognizable claim for the violation of plaintiff’s First Amendment

right to exercise his religion. Within 60 days of the date this order is filed, defendants shall

file a dispositive motion, or, alternatively, a notice that they are of the opinion that the claims

in the Amended Complaint cannot be resolved by such a motion. All of the provisions in the

May 11, 2006 order not inconsistent with the present order remain in effect.

This order terminates Docket No. 9. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 30, 2006 _________________________

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cv-00184-MMC Document 11 Filed 06/30/06 Page 2 of 2