Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01780/USCOURTS-caed-1_14-cv-01780-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Natalie Clark
Defendant
Antoneya Graves
Defendant
Michael Sands
Plaintiff
Marlene Smith
Defendant

Document Text:

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

MICHAEL SANDS, 

 Plaintiff,

 vs.

MARLENE SMITH, et al.,

 Defendants.

1:14-cv-01780-GSA-PC

ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR 

SCREENING ORDER

ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF 

TIME TO FILE RESPONSE TO 

COMPLAINT

(Doc. 2.)

This is a civil action filed by Michael Sands (APlaintiff@), a state prisoner proceeding pro 

se. This action was initiated by civil complaint filed by Plaintiff in the Kings County Superior 

Court on July 30, 2014 (Case #14-C0226). On November 12, 2014, defendants Marlene 

Robicheaux-Smith, Natalie Clark, and Antoneya Graves (“Defendants”) removed the case to 

federal court by filing a Notice of Removal of Action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ' 1441(c). (Doc. 

2.) Within the Notice of Removal, Defendants requested the court to screen Plaintiff=s 

complaint under 28 U.S.C. ' 1915A and grant Defendants an extension of time in which to file 

a responsive pleading. (Id. at 2:9-3:3.)

The Court is required to screen complaints in civil actions in which a prisoner seeks 

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

' 1915A(a). Plaintiff=s complaint alleges that Defendants, employees of the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) at Corcoran State Prison in Corcoran, 

Case 1:14-cv-01780-LJO-EPG Document 4 Filed 11/21/14 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

California, violated his rights under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. 

Because Plaintiff is a prisoner and Defendants were employees of the CDCR at a state prison 

when the alleged events occurred, the court is required to screen the complaint. Therefore, 

Defendants' motion for the Court to screen the complaint shall be granted. In addition, good 

cause appearing, the motion for extension of time shall also be granted.

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants' motion for the Court to screen the complaint is GRANTED, and the 

court shall issue a screening order in due time;

2. Defendants are GRANTED an extension of time until thirty days from the date 

of service of the Court's screening order in which to file a response to the 

complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 21, 2014 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-01780-LJO-EPG Document 4 Filed 11/21/14 Page 2 of 2