Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05678/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05678-2/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

 The Court has a large number of prisoner civil rights cases pending before it.

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FREDERICK WINZER,

Plaintiff,

v.

WACKENHUT CORRECTIONS

CORPORATION, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:03-CV-5678-SMS-P

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTIONS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME AND

FOR SCREENING OF AMENDED

COMPLAINT BY COURT, AS MODIFIED BY

THIS ORDER

(Doc. 52 and 53)

Plaintiff Frederick Winzer (“plaintiff”)is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se. Plaintiff seeks

relief 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. Pursuant to the

Court’s order of March 22, 2005, plaintiff filed an amended complaint on July 28, 2005. On

September 22, 2005, the Court ordered defendants Andrews, Barnes, Akanno, and Sterling

(“defendants”) to file a response to the amended complaint. On October 26, 2005, defendants filed

a motion seeking an extension of time to file a response to the amended complaint, and a motion

seeking screening of the amended complaint by the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A.

Defendants’ two motions shall be resolved as follows. As set forth in the Court’s order of

March 22, the Court is aware of its duty to screen complaints, and the Court shall do so in due

course.1 Defendants are relieved of their obligation to file a response to the amended complaint until

///

Case 1:03-cv-05678-SMS Document 54 Filed 12/13/05 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

the Court has screened it, determined which claims are cognizable against which defendants, and

provided defendants with further instruction concerning the deadline for a response. 

Defendants’ concern over locating certain unserved defendants, set forth in their motion for

an extension of time, is unwarranted. The Court ordered only those defendants who have been

served to respond. Defendants’ counsel was at no time directed to respond on behalf of any unserved

defendants named in the amended complaint. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ motions for an extension of time to respond to the amended complaint

and for screening of the amended complaint, filed October 26, 2005, are GRANTED;

and

2. Defendants are relieved of their obligation to respond to the amended complaint until

it has been screened by the Court and they have received further instruction from the

Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 12, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05678-SMS Document 54 Filed 12/13/05 Page 2 of 2