Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01387/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01387-1/pdf.json

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

---

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

MELVIN WINCE,

Plaintiff,

v.

ISMAIL, et. Al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 07-1387 AWI SMS P 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RULING

ON CASE (Doc. 7.) 

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

this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the instant action on

October 6, 2006. On April 6, 2007, Plaintiff filed a pleading titled “Motion/Request for Ruling

on Case.” Plaintiff requests that the Court rule on his case since it has been pending for some

time. 

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a

governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The

court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally

“frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek

monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). 

“Notwithstanding any filing fee, or any portion thereof, that may have been paid, the court shall

dismiss the case at any time if the court determines that . . . the action or appeal . . . fails to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). 

Case 1:06-cv-01387-AWI -SMS Document 8 Filed 04/13/07 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

A complaint, or portion thereof, should only be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted if it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in

support of the claim or claims that would entitle him to relief. See Hishon v. King & Spalding,

467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984), citing Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); see also Palmer v.

Roosevelt Lake Log Owners Ass'n, 651 F.2d 1289, 1294 (9th Cir. 1981). In reviewing a

complaint under this standard, the court must accept as true the allegations of the complaint in

question, Hospital Bldg. Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe the

pleading in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve all doubts in the plaintiff's favor. 

Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). 

As is evidenced by Plaintiff’s Motion, Plaintiff is aware that his case must be screened

before the Court can order service of the Complaint. However, the Court has an overwhelming

number of similar civil rights actions pending before it that also need the Court’s attention with

regard to screening. Approximately 60% of the cases reviewed in the Eastern District are cases

involving prisoners. Plaintiff can rest assured that the Court will examine his case as soon as it

can but the Court examines cases in the order that they are filed. In the meantime, Plaintiff

should ensure that he keeps the Court informed of his current address at all times so that he will

receive any orders issued regarding his case. 

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. The Motion for Ruling is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 13, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01387-AWI -SMS Document 8 Filed 04/13/07 Page 2 of 2