Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00803/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00803-2/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GARRISON S. JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

MATHEW CATE , et al., 

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:10-cv-803-AWI-MJS (PC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

SCREENING

(ECF No. 13)

Plaintiff Garrison S. Johnson(“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion

Requesting a Screening of His Complaint. (ECF No. 13.) Plaintiff alleges that he filed this

action one year ago and has heard nothing from the Court.

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief

against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has

raised claims that are legally “frivolous or malicious,” that fail to state a claim upon which

relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from

such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). The Court will direct the United States Marshal

to serve Plaintiff’s complaint only after the Court has screened the complaint and

determined that it contains cognizable claims for relief against the named Defendants. 

///

Case 1:10-cv-00803-AWI-MJS Document 14 Filed 11/10/11 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-

The Court is aware of Plaintiff’s action and his Compliant is in line for screening.

However, the Court has a large number of prisoner civil rights cases pending before it and

will screen Plaintiff’s complaint in due course. Until such time as the Court has screened

Plaintiff’s Complaint, no further action is required.

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion Requesting a Screening of His Complaint (ECF No.

13) is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 9, 2011 /s/Michael J. Seng 

ci4d6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-00803-AWI-MJS Document 14 Filed 11/10/11 Page 2 of 2