Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00184/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00184-4/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 Guillermo Garcia is appearing pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 

1983. 

On February 8, 2019, Defendants removed this action from the Tuolumne County Superior 

Court. 

On February 22, 2019, the Court screened Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, 

and found that Plaintiff stated a cognizable retaliation claim against only Defendant Chavez. The 

Court granted Plaintiff the opportunity to amend the complaint or notify the Court of his intent to 

proceed only on the claim against Defendant Chavez. 

///

///

///

GUILLERMO GARCIA,

 Plaintiff,

v.

M. BALDWIN, et.al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:19-cv-00184-DAD-SAB (PC)

ORDER VACATING JANUARY 27, 2020, 

ORDER FOR DEFENDANTS TO FILE A 

RESPONSE

[ECF No. 35]

Case 1:19-cv-00184-DAD-SAB Document 36 Filed 01/28/20 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

Prior to Plaintiff’s response to the Court’s February 22, 2019 screening order, Defendant 

Chavez filed a motion to require Plaintiff to post security as a vexatious litigant.1 (ECF No. 13.) 

On September 23, 2019, the undersigned issued Findings and Recommendations 

recommending that Defendants’ motion to require Plaintiff to post security as a vexatious litigant be 

denied. (ECF No. 21.) Defendants filed objections on October 14, 2019. (ECF No. 22.) 

On October 28, 2019, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint. (ECF No. 23.) 

On January 24, 2020, the Findings and Recommendations were adopted in full and 

Defendants’ motion for Plaintiff to post security as a vexatious litigant was denied. (ECF No. 34.)

On January 27, 2020, the Court directed Defendants to file a further response to the complaint 

within twenty days. (ECF No. 35.) Because the Court must screen Plaintiff’s first amended 

complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A prior to ordering a further response, the Court’s January 27, 

2020, was issued in error and shall be vacated. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Court’s January 27, 2020 order is VACATED; and

2. The Court will screen Plaintiff’s first amended complaint filed on October 28, 2019, in 

due course prior to ordering a further response. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 28, 2020 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

1

Plaintiff was granted four extensions of time to respond to the Court’s February 22, 2019 screening order. (ECF Nos. 6, 

8, 10, 12.) 

Case 1:19-cv-00184-DAD-SAB Document 36 Filed 01/28/20 Page 2 of 2