Scott v. Cox

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 * * * 5 Steven L. Scott, Case No. 2:17-cv-00702-JAD-BNW 6 Plaintiff, 7 Order re [83] and [84] v. 8 James Cox, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 12 In this § 1983 civil rights case, Nevada’s Office of the Attorney General—which 13 represents defendants Williams, Lambey, Garcia, and Gutierrez—filed a motion for screening and 14 unopposed motion to stay the case pending screening. ECF Nos. 83 & 84. For the reasons below 15 the motions will be denied. 16 Plaintiff Steven L. Scott proceeds in forma pauperis. ECF No. 20. The district judge 17 screened Scott’s original complaint and, in her screening order, dismissed certain of Scott’s 18 claims, allowed others to proceed, and referred the case to the Court’s Inmate Early Mediation 19 Program. ECF No. 5 at 15–16. To facilitate settlement discussions, the Attorney General entered 20 a “limited notice of appearance” on behalf of defendants. ECF No. 7 at 1. A settlement was not 21 reached. ECF No. 10. 22 Scott subsequently filed an amended complaint, which the district judge again screened. 23 ECF Nos. 11 & 20. The district judge again found that Scott had stated at least some colorable 24 claims. ECF No. 20. Critically, following the district judge’s second screening order, the 25 Attorney General accepted service on behalf of several defendants. ECF No. 23. 26 Defendants filed a motion to dismiss Scott’s complaint. Upon that motion, the district 27 judge dismissed certain claims barred under res judicata and allowed four other claims to proceed. 1 ECF No. 45 at 13–14. Defendants filed an answer to Scott’s surviving claims. ECF No. 51. And 2 the Court, in February 2020, issued a scheduling order opening discovery. ECF No. 46. 3 Scott filed a motion to amend his complaint, which the defendants opposed. ECF Nos. 53 4 & 57. Seemingly in response to defendants’ opposition, Scott filed a second motion to amend, 5 which defendants did not oppose. See ECF No. 58. The Court recommended to the district 6 judge that she deny as moot Scott’s first motion to amend, ECF No. 81, and it granted Scott’s 7 latter motion to amend under LR 7-2(d) (“The failure of an opposing party to file points and 8 authorities in response to any motion . . . constitutes a consent to the granting of the motion.”). 9 Now, defendants ask this Court to screen Scott’s complaint a third time because, they 10 allege, Scott’s proposed second amended complaint (“SAC”) contains barred claims, new 11 defendants, and new allegations. ECF No. 83 at 5. Further, defendants claim that forcing them to 12 move to dismiss claims that have already been barred would “waste resources.” Id. 13 “There is no question that the [Prison Litigation Reform Act (“PLRA”)] requires courts to 14 engage in pre-answer screening of an inmate’s complaint.” Olausen v. Murguia, Case No. 3:13- 15 cv-00388-MMD-VPC, 2014 WL 6065622, at *1. In this case, the Court has twice done so. ECF 16 Nos. 5 & 20. But this compulsory judicial screening requirement does not extend to every 17 proposed amended complaint filed post-answer. Id. Defendants here have already appeared, 18 accepted service, filed an answer, and more. Thus, the PLRA does not require the Court to 19 screen the SAC. 20 Further, the Court disagrees that a sua sponte screening of the SAC would preserve 21 resources, particularly given that Scott asserts new claims and has added new defendants. 22 Defendants argue that screening the SAC would mean “that Scott cannot proceed to discovery or 23 summary judgment on” the barred claims. ECF No. 83 at 5–6. However, screening is not the 24 only mechanism available to challenge the propriety or progress of those claims. Defendants 25 could have opposed the second motion to amend by arguing that the amendments were futile. 26 Page 2 of 3 1 || They chose not to. Now, they hope the Court will do it for them, and the Court respectfully 2 || declines. 3 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendants’ motion for screening order (ECF No. 4 || 83) is DENIED. 5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants’ unopposed motion to stay pending a 6 || ruling on the motion for screening (ECF No. 84) is DENIED as moot. 7 DATED: September 28, 2020. 8 EX, wa WED 9 BRENDA WEKSLER 10 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Page 3 of 3 27