Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00156/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00156-0/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CLAUDELL EARL MARTIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

LOADHOLT, 

Defendant.

 /

CASE NO. 1:10-cv-156-LJO-MJS (PC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

REASSIGNMENT

(ECF No. 9)

Plaintiff Claudell Earl Martin ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and

in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

This action was initiated on February 1, 2010. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) The Court has

yet to screen Plaintiff’s Complaint. Plaintiff’s May 23, 2011, Motion for Reassignment is

now before the Court. (Mot., ECF No. 9.) 

Plaintiff asks that this case be reassigned because it has been pending for over a

year; he wants it reassigned to a judge who can process it faster. (Mot. at 3.) Plaintiff

argues that the Court’s failure to screen the Complaint within a year “can’t be seen as

promoting Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 1.” (Id.) Plaintiff also argues that his

Complaint needs be screened in a timely manner to ensure him a full and fair hearing. (Id.

at 4.) 

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

Case 1:10-cv-00156-LJO-MJS Document 10 Filed 09/19/11 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-

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 Defendant. 

Although the Court is sympathetic to Plaintiff’s concerns about the delay in

screening his Complaint, all of the Judges of the Eastern District Court have a large

number of prisoner civil rights cases pending before them. Reassignment would not likely

affect the timing of screening. The Court will screen Plaintiff’s Complaint in due course.

Plaintiff’s grounds for moving for reassignment do not justify reassignment..

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Reassignment is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 19, 2011 /s/Michael J. Seng 

ci4d6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:10-cv-00156-LJO-MJS Document 10 Filed 09/19/11 Page 2 of 2