Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00973/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00973-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rodney Karl Blackwell
Plaintiff
CDCR
Defendant
A. Delk
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

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

RODNEY KARL BLACKWELL, 

Plaintiff,

v.

A. DELK, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:07-cv-00973-AWI-SMS-PC

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR

SCREENING ORDER

 

ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF 

TIME TO FILE RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT

(Doc. 3)

This is a civil action filed by plaintiff Rodney Karl Blackwell (“plaintiff”), a state prisoner

proceeding pro se. The action was removed from the Fresno County Superior Court to this court by

defendant California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) on July 5, 2007, as

a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 5, 2007, defendant CDCR filed a motion

for the court to screen plaintiff’s complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and to grant CDCR an

extension of time in which to file a responsive pleading. On July 23, 2007, plaintiff filed a response

in opposition to the motion.

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). 

Plaintiff’s complaint alleges that on January 20, 2006, his due process and equal protection rights

under the Fourteenth Amendment and the California Constitution were violated when defendant A.

Delk (“Delk”), a correctional officer at Pleasant Valley State Prison, disposed of items of plaintiff’s

personal property and failed to compensate him for the value of the items. Plaintiff also alleges

Case 1:07-cv-00973-AWI -SMS Document 10 Filed 01/16/08 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

violations of his rights under California tort law when Delk deprived him of his property. Because

CDCR is a California state entity and Delk was employed as a correctional officer at a state prison

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

motion for the court to screen the complaint shall be granted. In addition, good cause appearing, the

motion for extension of time shall be granted.

Plaintiff argues that CDCR is not a defendant in this action and that Delk is the sole

defendant. Plaintiff is advised that he may bring a motion to dismiss CDCR from this action. 

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant CDCR’s motion for the court to screen the complaint is GRANTED, and

the court shall issue a screening order in due time;

2. Defendant CDCR is 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: January 14, 2008 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00973-AWI -SMS Document 10 Filed 01/16/08 Page 2 of 2