Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01097/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01097-5/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

DAVID D. HARRIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

BAKEMAN, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 05-1097 OWW NEW (DLB) P

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

REGARDING MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT (Doc. 16.) 

 David D. Harris (“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 filed the instant action on

August 26, 2005. Plaintiff names Dr. Bakeman and Warden Yates as Defendants. 

On November 2, 2006, the Court dismissed the Complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiff

submitted an Amended Complaint on November 22, 2006, which is pending before the Court. 

On January 11, 2007, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Permanent Injunction requesting that the

Court issue an Injunction because the Defendants are creating a “false crime occurrence” against

he plaintiff in the form of threats, lack of feeding, etc. The Court issued Findings and

Recommendations to deny the Motion on January 17, 2007. The Findings are pending before the

District Court. 

On January 29, 2007, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff states that

the facts are not in dispute by the Defendants and thus, summary judgment is warranted. 

Plaintiff was informed in the Informational Order served on him by the Court that the

Court must initially screen the case to determine whether it states a cognizable claim for relief. 

After screening, if the Court finds that there are cognizable claims for relief, the Court will Order

Case 1:05-cv-01097-SRB Document 19 Filed 02/22/07 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

Plaintiff to complete and submit forms so that the U.S. Marshal can serve Defendants with

Plaintiff’s Complaint. Only then will the Defendants make an appearance and file an Answer.

Here, however, as no screening has yet taken place, there has been no service of the

Complaint on the Defendants and Defendants have not yet appeared in the action. Thus, any

Motion for Summary Judgment is premature. 

The Court recognizes that Plaintiff wishes this action to proceed speedily. However, the

Court has hundreds of similar cases pending that also require the Court’s time and attention. As

such, the Court proceeds with the cases in the order that they are filed. Plaintiff can rest assured

that the Court has not forgotten about his case nor is it lost. The Court will proceed with the

screening in due course. Plaintiff is advised to keep the Court apprised of his current address so

as to receive all orders or pleadings filed in the case. 

Accordingly, the Court RECOMMENDS that the Motion for Summary Judgment be

DENIED without prejudice as premature. 

The Court HEREBY ORDERS that these Findings and Recommendations be submitted

to the United States District Court Judge assigned to this action pursuant to the provisions of 28

U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Rule 72-304 of the Local Rules of Practice for the United States

District Court, Eastern District of California. Within TWENTY (20) days after being served

with a copy of these Findings and Recommendations, any party may file written Objections with

the Court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned “Objections to

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Replies to the Objections shall be served

and filed within TEN (10) court days (plus three days if served by mail) after service of the

Objections. The Court will then review the Magistrate Judge’s ruling pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636 (b)(1)(C). The parties are advised that failure to file Objections within the specified time

may waive the right to appeal the Order of the District Court. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153

(9 Cir. 1991). th

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: February 21, 2007 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01097-SRB Document 19 Filed 02/22/07 Page 2 of 2