Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00329/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00329-1/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRYAN LAMAR BLANTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

SCHULTZ, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 05 00329 OWW SMS PC 

ORDER DISREGARDING MOTION TO

CORRECT STATUTORY AUTHORITY

(Doc. 6.) 

Bryan Lamar Blanton (“Plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil action. 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. 

Plaintiff filed the instant action on March 10, 2005. On May 4, 2005, plaintiff filed a

Motion for Correction of Statutory Authority. (Doc. 6.) In this pleading, Plaintiff states that an

Order issued by the Court erroneously indicated that Plaintiff was pursuing an action under 42

U.S.C. § 1983 and requested that the Court correct the Order. 

As indicated in the Court’s Informational Order, the Court has a preliminary duty to

screen complaints to determine whether they state a cognizable claim for relief. To the extent

Plaintiff is concerned that the erroneous statement in the prior Order deprives this Court of

Case 1:05-cv-00329-OWW -SMS Document 7 Filed 05/06/05 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

jurisdiction, he should not be so concerned. An Order making such a correction at this time is

unnecessary as the Court has yet to determine whether the complaint sufficiently states a claim

such that the case can proceed. Plaintiff can rest assured that when such a screening is

conducted, the Court will make a determine as to its jurisdiction. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s

Motion is DISREGARDED. The Court will conduct a screening of the case in due course. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 5, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00329-OWW -SMS Document 7 Filed 05/06/05 Page 2 of 2