(PC) Reinhardt v. Hamlin

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID MICHAEL REINHARDT, Case No. 1:19-cv-00892-SKO (PC)

Plaintiff, ORDER DISREGARDING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT v. AS PREMATURE

W. KENT HAMLIN, et al., (Doc. 7)

Defendants. ___________________________________/

Plaintiff, David Michael Reinhardt, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the United States Court for the Central District of California on April 30, 2019. (Doc. 1.) The action was transferred to this Court on June 28, 2019. (Docs. 9, 10.) Before the action was transferred, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 7.) 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 raised claims that are legally frivolous, malicious, 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); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii). A complaint must be dismissed if it lacks a cognizable legal theory or fails to allege sufficient facts under a cognizable legal theory. See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). Plaintiff’s Complaint has not yet been screened, and has neither been found to state any cognizable claims, nor served on the Defendants. As a result, none of the named Defendants have appeared in this action. If Plaintiff is found to state a cognizable claim, the Defendants will be served and will respond to Plaintiff’s claims. Plaintiff may then properly file a motion for summary judgment. Until then, any motion for summary judgment filed by Plaintiff is premature. Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment, filed on May 28, 2019, (Doc. 7), is DISREGARDED, without prejudice to refiling, as it is premature. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Sheila K. Oberto Dated: September 3, 2019 /s/ . UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE