Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00833/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-00833-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Victor Blacknell
Plaintiff
California Medical Facility
Defendant
R Martinez
Defendant

Document Text:

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

 From the filings submitted by defendant, it is evident that plaintiff named California 1

Medical Facility, whether appropriately or not, as well as Officer Martinez, as a defendant. 

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VICTOR BLACKNELL, 

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-0833 FCD GGH P

vs.

CALIFORNIA MEDICAL FACILITY,

et al., ORDER 

Defendants.

 /

This matter was removed to federal court by defendant R. Martinez, on April 18,

2006, from Solano County Superior Court, where this action had been filed by plaintiff on

February 15, 2006. The action was removed by defendant Martinez, who avers that she is the

only named and served defendant, on the basis that this court has original jurisdiction under 28 1

U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b), because the allegations

implicate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Defendant moves the court to screen plaintiff’s complaint under 28 U.S.C 1915A,

waiving, under 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g), her responsibility to file a response to the complaint within

five days of a petition for removal, pursuant to Fed. Civ. P. 81(c). Defendant also seeks a sixtyCase 2:06-cv-00833-FCD-GGH Document 8 Filed 06/19/06 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

2

day extension of time to file a responsive pleading upon the issuance of the court’s order upon

screening the complaint. 

The undersigned has reviewed plaintiff’s allegations, keeping in mind that courts

have a duty to construe pro se pleadings liberally (Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1137 (9

th

Cir. 1987), citing Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9, 101 S. Ct. 173 (1980), in turn quoting Haines

v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S. Ct. 594, 595-596, 176 (1972)), including complaints (Zichko

v. Idaho, 247 F.3d 1015, 1020 (9 Cir. 2001) (noting, in particular, that motions and pleadings by th

pro se prisoners must be construed liberally)).

The court finds plaintiff’s allegations to be cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983

and 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b); if the allegations of the complaint are proven, plaintiff has a

reasonable opportunity to prevail on the merits of this action. 

The court now directs defendants to file a response, in the form of an answer or a

motion, to the complaint within thirty (30) days of the filed date of this order.

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant Martinez’s April 18, 2006, request for an extension of time to file a

responsive pleading is partially granted;

2. Defendants must file their responsive pleading to plaintiff’s complaint within

thirty days of the filed date of this order;

3. Should defendants’ response be in the form of a motion to dismiss, plaintiff

must file any opposition within thirty days of service of any such motion; defendants will have

seven days thereafter to file a reply. 

DATED: 6/19/06

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

GGH:009

blac0833.1

Case 2:06-cv-00833-FCD-GGH Document 8 Filed 06/19/06 Page 2 of 2