(PS) Murphy v. Travelers Insurance Co.

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: January 8, 2025
• Docket: 2:24-cv-02589
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SHANNON O. MURPHY, Case No. 2:24-cv-02589-TLN-CSK 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS AS PREMATURE 14 TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, 15 Defendant. (ECF No. 3) 16 17 Plaintiff Shannon O. Murphy, who is proceeding pro se, has moved to proceed in 18 forma pauperis (“IFP”) in this action. (ECF No. 2.) After determining whether IFP is 19 appropriate and granting IFP, the Court must screen the complaint and dismiss any 20 claims that are frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted, 21 or seek monetary relief against an immune defendant. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Plaintiff's 22 Complaint, which was filed on September 25, 2024, has not yet been screened; thus, the 23 Court has not yet determined whether the Complaint states any cognizable claim(s). 24 Therefore, Defendant Travelers Insurance Company’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 3) is 25 denied as premature. See Gibbons v. Arpaio, 2007 WL 2990151, *2 (D. Az. Oct. 11, 26 2007) (dismissing as premature a motion to dismiss that was filed before screening order 27 issued). The Court will screen the Complaint in due course, and if any cognizable claims 28 remain after screening, Defendant will have the opportunity to respond to the Complaint 1 | or if leave to amend is provided, respond to an Amended Complaint. Accordingly, 2 || Defendant’s motion to dismiss is denied without prejudice and the February 18, 2025 3 | hearing is vacated. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 Dated: January 8, 2025 i s \C 7 GHI 500 KIM UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 4, murp2589. 24 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28