Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01683/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01683-0/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

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHAUNCEY HOLLIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

KELLY SANTORO, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:16-cv-01683-DAD-BAM (PC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

SUMMARY JUDGMENT WITHOUT 

PREJUDICE

(Doc. No. 9)

Plaintiff Chauncey Hollis is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff initiated this action on October 6, 2016 by filing his complaint. 

(Doc. No. 1.) Thereafter, the case was transferred to this court from the U.S. District Court for 

the Central District of California. On November 14, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion for summary 

judgment. (Doc. No. 9.) On November 18, 2016, plaintiff filed notice that he was declining to 

consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction over the action for all purposes. (Doc. No. 10.) 

Accordingly, the case has been referred to the assigned magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1)(B) and in keeping with Local Rule 302 of the United States District Court for the 

Eastern District of California. 

Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment is premature. The assigned magistrate judge is 

required to screen complaints in civil actions in which prisoners seek relief from governmental 

entities, officers or employees. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). No such screening has yet occurred in this 

Case 1:16-cv-01683-DAD-BAM Document 14 Filed 01/05/17 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

case and service of plaintiff’s complaint has not yet been authorized. Should plaintiff’s complaint 

proceed beyond the screening stage, the court will direct it to be served, and will issue an order 

setting a schedule for discovery and dispositive motions. Since no complaint has been ordered 

served and no defendants have yet appeared in this action, dispositive motions like plaintiff’s 

motion for summary judgment are premature. Plaintiff is advised that his complaint will be 

screened in due course.

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 9) is hereby denied

without prejudice to its re-filing at the appropriate stage of this litigation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 5, 2017 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-01683-DAD-BAM Document 14 Filed 01/05/17 Page 2 of 2