Whatley v. Valdovinos

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 REGINALD WHATLEY, Case No. 3:18-cv-02761-CAB-BGS 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART 13 AND DENYING IN PART EX v. PARTE APPLICATION FOR 14 COURT TO SCREEN PLAINTIFF’S SECOND 15 G. VALDOVINOS, et al., AMENDED COMPLAINT AND EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE 16 Defendants. RESPONSIVE PLEADING [Doc. No. 43.] 17

18 On April 6, 2020 Defendant G. Valdovinos applied ex parte for (1) the Court 19 to screen Plaintiff Reginald Whatley’s Second Amended Complaint (SAC); and (2) 20 an extension of time to file a responsive pleading to the SAC. [Doc. No. 43.] 21 The Court HEREBY ORDERS: 22 1) The application for the court to screen the SAC is DENIED as the 23 requested relief is inappropriate. See Rincon v. Cate, 2011 WL 1642615, at 24 *1-2 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2011)(“nothing in . . . §1915A permits 25 Defendants to request the Court do anything sua sponte). 26 2) Defendant Valdovinos’ request for an extension of time to file a responsive 27 pleading to the SAC is GRANTED. Defendant Valdovinos’ responsive 28 ] pleading to the SAC will be suspended until such time as the SAC has been 2 served on Defendant Romero; then Defendant Valdovinos’ responsive 3 pleading deadline will be the same as Defendant Romero’s responsive 4 pleading deadline based on the date of service of the SAC (by waiver or 5 otherwise). 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 | Dated: April 7, 2020

9 Hon. Cathy Ann Bencivengo 10 United States District Judge

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28