Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01184/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01184-4/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

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

Plaintiff Rodney O’Neal Brown (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action on July 

29, 2014. Plaintiff filed his first amended complaint on February 2, 2015. (ECF No. 18.)

On March 11, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion to vacate his consent to the undersigned Magistrate 

Judge due to the failure to screen his complaint. (ECF No. 20.) By order dated March 16, 2015, the 

Court denied the motion, finding that Plaintiff’s arguments about the delay in screening and his 

request to withdraw consent both lacked merit. In so doing, the Court explained that it had not 

unreasonably delayed screening his amended complaint, which had been filed six weeks prior. The 

Court also informed Plaintiff that the Eastern District of California maintains one of the heaviest 

caseloads in the nation, which might result in some delay in individual matters. (ECF No. 21.) 

On March 19, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting that the Chief District Court Judge take 

judicial notice of his amended complaint and screen it pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Plaintiff 

RODNEY O’NEAL BROWN,

 Plaintiff,

v.

JEFFREY BROWN, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-01184-LJO-BAM (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

CHIEF DISTRICT COURT JUDGE TO TAKE 

JUDICIAL NOTICE OF PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED 

CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT

(ECF No. 22)

Case 1:14-cv-01184-LJO-BAM Document 25 Filed 05/21/15 Page 1 of 2
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

asserted that the delay in screening his complaint was egregious, unconstitutional and a denial of 

access to the courts. (ECF No. 22.) 

On May 18, 2015, the undersigned Magistrate Judge screened Plaintiff’s first amended 

complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. The Court dismissed the complaint and granted Plaintiff 

leave to amend within thirty days. (ECF No. 24.) 

As the Court has screened Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, his request for judicial notice 

and screening by the Chief District Court Judge is no longer necessary and is HEREBY DENIED as 

moot. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 21, 2015 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01184-LJO-BAM Document 25 Filed 05/21/15 Page 2 of 2