Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01605/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01605-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Curtis Allen
Defendant
Bangi
Defendant
J. Benak
Defendant
Matthew Cate
Defendant
Muehldorf
Defendant
Jack St. Clair
Defendant
Kenneth Lee Stansbery
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

KENNETH LEE STANSBERY,

Plaintiff,

v.

J. BENAK, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:11-cv-01605-LJO-DLB PC

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR SCREENING ORDER (ECF

NO. 2)

ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST

FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT (ECF NO. 10)

ORDER STRIKING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR DEFENDANTS’ COUNSEL TO

INCLUDE STATE BAR NUMBER ON

DOCUMENTS (ECF NO. 12)

I. Background

Plaintiff Kenneth Lee Stansbery (“Plaintiff”) is a prisoner in the custody of the California

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). Plaintiff is proceeding pro se in this

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding against Defendants J.

Benak, Muehldorf, Bangi, Curtis Allen, Jack St. Clair, and Matthew Cate for deliberate

indifference to a serious medical need in violation of the Eighth Amendment1, and state law

claims of medical malpractice, negligence, and denial of medical care. Plaintiff filed this action

in Tuolomne County Superior Court on July 26, 2011. Defendant Cate removed the action to

this Court on September 20, 2011 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b), as this Court has original

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The other Defendants joined in the removal on October 13,

2011.

Pending before the Court are: 1) Defendant’s request that the Court screen Plaintiff’s

1

Plaintiff filed a separate claim for “pain and suffering” in violation of the Eighth Amendment,

which is redundant and omitted here.

1

Case 1:11-cv-01605-LJO-DLB Document 14 Filed 07/12/12 Page 1 of 3
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

complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A prior to requiring Defendants to file a responsive

pleading, 2) Plaintiff’s request for entry of default against Defendants, and 3) Plaintiff’s motion

that Defendants’ counsel include her California state bar number on all documents.

II. Request For Screening Order

Defendant Cate requests that the Court screen Plaintiff’s complaint pursuant to § 1915A,

and grant Defendants thirty days in which to respond after the screening of Plaintiff’s complaint. 

Plaintiff did not file a response.

Under§ 1915A, this Court is required to “review, before docketing, if feasible or, in any

event, as soon as practicable after docketing, a complaint in a civil action in which a

prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental

entity.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Defendant’s request is reasonable and will be granted. A

screening order will be issued in due course.

III. Request For Entry Of Default

Plaintiff contends that default and default judgment should be entered against Defendants

for their failure to respond after receiving proof of service. ECF No. 10. Plaintiff’s request is

unsigned. The Court is required to strike unsigned documents filed with the Court. Fed. R. Civ.

P. 11(a). Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request will be stricken.

Even if Plaintiff’s request was properly filed, it would be denied. The Court will grant

Defendant’s request for a screening order of Plaintiff’s complaint prior to requiring Defendants

to file an answer or other responsive pleading. Because the Court has not yet screened Plaintiff’s

complaint, Defendants are not yet required to provide an response.

IV. Motion For Counsel To Provide Bar Number On Documents

Plaintiff contends that he has not received any documents, from the Court or Defendants,

since October 12, 2011. ECF No. 12. Plaintiff contends that the prison staff at Sierra

Conservation Center, where Plaintiff is currently incarcerated, are returning mail that does not

have a state bar number on the document. Id.

Plaintiff’s motion is unsigned and will be stricken. Even if it was signed, the motion is

moot. A review of the court docket indicates that Defendants’ counsel has listed her state bar

2

Case 1:11-cv-01605-LJO-DLB Document 14 Filed 07/12/12 Page 2 of 3
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

number on all of Defendants’ filings. The Court last issued an order on December 20, 2011, in

which Chief United States District Judge Anthony W. Ishii reassigned this case to United States

District Judge Lawrence J. O’Neill. ECF No. 13.

V. Conclusion And Order

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant’s request for a screening order pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A prior to

requiring Defendants to respond to the complaint is granted;

2. Plaintiff’s request for entry of default is stricken; and

3. Plaintiff’s motion for Defendants’ counsel to provide a state bar number on all

documents is stricken.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 12, 2012 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3

Case 1:11-cv-01605-LJO-DLB Document 14 Filed 07/12/12 Page 3 of 3