Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05771/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05771-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Charles Hawkins
Plaintiff
USA
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

CHARLES HAWKINS,

Plaintiff,

v.

USA, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 04-5771 OWW SMS P 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO WITHDRAW

REQUEST TO STAY CASE AND

DISREGARDING MOTION FOR ORDER

CLARIFYING SERVICE (Doc. 52-1, 52-2.) 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSE

TO THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT (Doc.

54.)

ORDER RELIEVING DEFENDANTS FROM

HAVING TO FILE ANSWER AT THIS STAGE

OF PROCEEDINGS

Charles Hawkins (“Plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil action. Plaintiff filed the instant action on May 27, 2004. 

On October 24,2006, this Court issued an Order denying Plaintiff’s Motion to stay the

case and also dismissed the Second Amended Complaint with leave to amend. The Court found

that the Second Amended Complaint did not state a cognizable claim for relief. 

Case 1:04-cv-05771-GMS Document 55 Filed 02/02/07 Page 1 of 4
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 October 27, 2006, Plaintiff filed a pleading titled “Motion to Withdraw Request to

Stay Case and for an Order Clarifying Status of Service as to Second Amended Complaint.” In

this pleading, Plaintiff requests that he be able to withdraw his request that the Court stay his

case and also inquires as to why the Second Amended Complaint has not yet be served. 

On January 23, 2007, Plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint as ordered by the Court. 

On January 25,2007, Defendants moved for an extension of time to file a response to the Third

Amended Complaint. 

Plaintiff is informed that this Court does not provide clarification upon the request of the

parties. As long as Plaintiff keeps the Court informed of his current address he will be served

with copies of all Orders and pleadings filed in the case. 

With regard to the Motion to Withdraw the Request to Stay, the Court issued an Order

denying the Motion on October 24, 2006. Thus, the Request to Withdraw is DENIED as moot.

Plaintiff’s Motion for Clarification is DISREGARDED. Although Plaintiff cites to the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure with regard to service of the complaint, Plaintiff overlooks the

Court’s Order dismissing the Second Amended Complaint with leave to amend which informs

him that the Court is required to screen each Complaint filed under the Prison Litigation Reform

Act. Generally, in cases such as Plaintiff’s, a complaint or any amended complaint is not served

on the Defendants until the Court determines that the complaint states cognizable claims for

relief. 

According to the history of this action, the summons and First Amended Complaint

served on Defendant USA was returned executed on March 21, 2005, and the Defendants filed an

Answer to the Amended Complaint on March 23, 2005. Despite this appearance and the

issuance of a Discovery/Scheduling order, Plaintiff moved to amend the complaint yet again on

July 29, 2005. Defendants did not oppose the Motion and thus, the Court vacated its

Discovery/Scheduling order to allow Plaintiff to file a Second Amended Complaint to which

Defendants filed an Answer on January 11, 2006. Plaintiff then sought to stay the case. Upon

review of Plaintiff’s Motion to Stay the Case, the Court discovered that the Second Amended

Complaint failed to state a claim for relief and thus, it issued an Order dismissing the Second

Case 1:04-cv-05771-GMS Document 55 Filed 02/02/07 Page 2 of 4
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

3

Amended Complaint and directing Plaintiff to file a Third Amended Complaint curing the

deficiencies or withdraw the action. It appeared that Plaintiff had yet again named improper

Defendants despite being informed of the requirements under the Federal Tort Claims Act in

prior Orders. Before filing the Third Amended Complaint however, Plaintiff sought

“clarification” of the status of service citing to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and

indicating that because he was given in forma pauperis status, the U.S. Marshal should have

effected service of the Second Amended Complaint and that according to the Court docket,

service was never ordered by the Court. 

Plaintiff’s assessment is correct. However, as stated in prior Orders, the Court generally

does not order service until a determination is made that the Complaint states a cognizable claim

for relief. Thus, each time Plaintiff amends his Complaint, the Court must conduct another

screening of the case. As is evidenced by the Court record, each time Plaintiff amended his

Complaint in this action, he failed to name a proper Defendant. Thus, no subsequent order

directing service of the Complaint issued. 

In light of the lack of such a determination, the Court finds it necessary to relieve the

Defendants of their responsibility to file an Answer under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

until such time as the Court has screened the Complaint pursuant to Section 1915(A). Following

such a determination, the Court will issue an Order directing the U.S. Marshal to serve any

Defendants who have not made an appearance in the case and order an Answer from those

Defendants who have appeared. In light of this order, the Court will deny Defendants request for

an extension of time to file an Answer. 

ORDER

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. The Motion to Withdraw Stay is DENIED; 

2. The Motion for Clarification of Status of SERVICE is DISREGARDED; 

3. The Defendant’s Motion for Extension of time to Respond to Third Amended

Complaint is DENIED. 

4. The Defendant is RELIEVED from having to file an Answer at this time. After

Case 1:04-cv-05771-GMS Document 55 Filed 02/02/07 Page 3 of 4
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

4

such time as the Court has conducted a screening of the case and should a

determination be made that the Complaint states cognizable claims, the Court will

DIRECT the Defendant to file an Answer as contemplated by the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure.

 IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 31, 2007 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

b6edp0 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05771-GMS Document 55 Filed 02/02/07 Page 4 of 4