(PC) Doe v. Johnson

Opinion

JANE DOE, No. 2:24-cv-1542 DJC AC P Plaintiff, v. ORDER MARCUS JOHNSON, et al., Defendants. Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding through counsel with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The parties have filed a stipulation for an extension of time for defendants Macomber, Hickethier, Gonzalez, Parker, Kent, and Montes to respond to the first amended complaint and to file any objections or a stipulation to the motion to proceed under a pseudonym. ECF No. 17. The request will be granted as to the time to file objections to the motion to proceed under a pseudonym. However, 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), regardless of whether plaintiff is represented by counsel, In re Prison Litig. Reform Act, 105 F.3d 1131, 1134 (6th Cir. 1997) (“District courts are required to screen all civil cases brought by prisoners, regardless of whether the inmate paid the full filing fee, is a pauper, is pro se, or is represented by counsel, as [§ 1915A] does not differentiate between civil actions brought by prisoners.”). Therefore, because the complaint has yet to be screened, the stipulated request for an extension of time to file a response to the complaint will be denied and a deadline for filing aresponse will be set once the complaint is screened. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The parties’ stipulation is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part; 2. The request that defendants have until September 27, 2024, to file any objections to plaintiffs motion to proceed under a pseudonym is GRANTED; and 3. The request for an extension of time for defendants to respond to the complaint is DENIED as unnecessary. DATED: August 29, 2024 ~ thin Chane ALLISON CLAIRE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE