(PC) Walker v. Salinas Valley Prison

E.D. California

(PC) Walker v. Salinas Valley Prison

District Court, E.D. California·Decided June 12, 2020·No. 1:20-cv-00546·Unknown

Opinion

KEVIN D. WALKER, Case No. 1:20-cv-00546-JLT (PC)

Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR v. SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS PREMATURE SALINAS VALLEY PRISON, et al., (Doc. 9) Defendants. 14-DAY DEADLINE

Clerk of the Court to Assign a District Judge

Plaintiff has filed a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 9.) Plaintiff is appearing pro se and his complaint is subject to screening. The Court has not yet screened the complaint and no defendants have appeared in this action. As explained in the Court’s First Informational Order, per 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity. (Doc. 3 at 3.) A pro se plaintiff may not proceed with such a legal action until the Court screens the plaintiff’s complaint and finds that it states a cognizable claim for relief. (Id.) Because Plaintiff is a prisoner appearing pro se and sues governmental entities, his complaint is subject to screening and he may not proceed in this case until the screening is complete. If the Court finds that the complaint states a cognizable claim for relief, it will direct service on the appropriate defendants at that time. (See id.) Based on the foregoing, the Court RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment be DENIED as premature. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to assign a district judge to this action. These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days of the date of service of these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may result in waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 11, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

KEVIN D. WALKER, Case No. 1:20-cv-00546-JLT (PC)

Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DENY PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR v. SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS PREMATURE SALINAS VALLEY PRISON, et al., (Doc. 9) Defendants. 14-DAY DEADLINE

Clerk of the Court to Assign a District Judge

Plaintiff has filed a motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 9.) Plaintiff is appearing pro se and his complaint is subject to screening. The Court has not yet screened the complaint and no defendants have appeared in this action. As explained in the Court’s First Informational Order, per 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or an officer or employee of a governmental entity. (Doc. 3 at 3.) A pro se plaintiff may not proceed with such a legal action until the Court screens the plaintiff’s complaint and finds that it states a cognizable claim for relief. (Id.) Because Plaintiff is a prisoner appearing pro se and sues governmental entities, his complaint is subject to screening and he may not proceed in this case until the screening is complete. If the Court finds that the complaint states a cognizable claim for relief, it will direct service on the appropriate defendants at that time. (See id.) Based on the foregoing, the Court RECOMMENDS that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment be DENIED as premature. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to assign a district judge to this action. These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within 14 days of the date of service of these Findings and Recommendations, Plaintiff may file written objections with the Court. The document should be captioned, “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections within the specified time may result in waiver of rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th Cir. 2014) (citing Baxter v. Sullivan, 923 F.2d 1391, 1394 (9th Cir. 1991)). IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 11, 2020 /s/ Jennifer L. Thurston UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

(PC) Walker v. Salinas Valley Prison, (E.D. Cal. 2020).

Pincite

(PC) Walker v. Salinas Valley Prison ((PC) Walker v. Salinas Valley Prison) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related