Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00156/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00156-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Loadholt
Defendant
Claudell Earl Martin
Plaintiff

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

27

28

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 1

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). 

-1-

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CLAUDELL EARL MARTIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

LOADHOLT,

Defendant.

 /

CASE NO. 1:10-CV-00156-LJO-MJS PC

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO HAVE PLEADINGS

SCREENED

(ECF No. 17)

On February 1, 2010, Plaintiff Claudell Earl Martin, a state prisoner proceeding pro

se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF

No. 1.)

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s February 27, 2012 Motion to Have Pleadings Screened

(ECF No. 17.) Plaintiff alleges that he filed this action 2 years ago and has not received 1

any notice as to whether Defendants are to be served.

Case 1:10-cv-00156-LJO-MJS Document 18 Filed 02/29/12 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-

On February 16, 2012, the Court issued its Order Dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint

with Leave to Amend. (ECF No. 15.) 

Plaintiff’s instant Motion appears to duplicate his January 13, 2012 Motion for Status

which the Court denied as moot on February 17, 2012 (ECF No. 16.)

The Court will not direct service by the United States Marshal absent a pleading

containing cognizable claims for relief against the named Defendants.

Plaintiff’s Motion to Have Pleadings Screened is moot. 

Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, it is ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Have

Pleadings Screened (Doc. 17), is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 29, 2012 /s/Michael J. Seng 

ci4d6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-00156-LJO-MJS Document 18 Filed 02/29/12 Page 2 of 2