Williams v. Aetna Inc.

E.D. California

Williams v. Aetna Inc.

DecidedJanuary 20, 2022

Docket1:21-cv-01583

StatusUnknown

This text of Williams v. Aetna Inc. (Williams v. Aetna Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Williams v. Aetna Inc., (E.D. Cal. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9

10 PRINCE PAUL RAYMOND WILLIAMS, Case No. 1:21-cv-01583-JLT-SAB

11 Plaintiff, ORDER VACATING FEBRUARY 3, 2022 SCHEDULING CONFERENCE 12 v. (ECF No. 5) 13 AETNA, INC., 14 Defendants.

15 16 Plaintiff Prince Paul Raymond Williams, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a 17 complaint in this action on October 27, 2021. (ECF No. 1.) A scheduling conference is currently 18 set in this matter for February 3, 2022. (ECF No. 5.) The Court shall vacate the scheduling 19 conference as the complaint has not been screened, and defendant has not been served or 20 appeared in this action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (“the court shall dismiss a case if at any time 21 if the Court determines that . . . the action . . . (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a 22 claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is 23 immune from such relief.”); Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995) (Section 24 1915 “authorizes a court to review a complaint that has been filed in forma pauperis, without 25 paying fees and costs, on its own initiative and to decide whether the action has an arguable 26 basis in law before permitting it to proceed.”); Ross v. Padres LP, No. 17-CV-1676 JLS (JLB), 27 2018 WL 280026, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2018) (“28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) mandates that the court reviewing an action filed pursuant to the IFP provisions of § 1915 make and rule on its own 1 | motion to dismiss before directing the Marshal to effect service.”). 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the scheduling conference currently set for 3 | February 3, 2022, is VACATED, and the parties shall not be required to appear on such date. 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. FA. ee 6 | Dated: _ January 20, 2022

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

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

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9

10 PRINCE PAUL RAYMOND WILLIAMS, Case No. 1:21-cv-01583-JLT-SAB

11 Plaintiff, ORDER VACATING FEBRUARY 3, 2022 SCHEDULING CONFERENCE 12 v. (ECF No. 5) 13 AETNA, INC., 14 Defendants.

15 16 Plaintiff Prince Paul Raymond Williams, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a 17 complaint in this action on October 27, 2021. (ECF No. 1.) A scheduling conference is currently 18 set in this matter for February 3, 2022. (ECF No. 5.) The Court shall vacate the scheduling 19 conference as the complaint has not been screened, and defendant has not been served or 20 appeared in this action. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (“the court shall dismiss a case if at any time 21 if the Court determines that . . . the action . . . (i) is frivolous or malicious; (ii) fails to state a 22 claim on which relief may be granted; or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant who is 23 immune from such relief.”); Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995) (Section 24 1915 “authorizes a court to review a complaint that has been filed in forma pauperis, without 25 paying fees and costs, on its own initiative and to decide whether the action has an arguable 26 basis in law before permitting it to proceed.”); Ross v. Padres LP, No. 17-CV-1676 JLS (JLB), 27 2018 WL 280026, at *2 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 3, 2018) (“28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) mandates that the court reviewing an action filed pursuant to the IFP provisions of § 1915 make and rule on its own 1 | motion to dismiss before directing the Marshal to effect service.”). 2 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the scheduling conference currently set for 3 | February 3, 2022, is VACATED, and the parties shall not be required to appear on such date. 4 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. FA. ee 6 | Dated: _ January 20, 2022

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Williams v. Aetna Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/williams-v-aetna-inc-caed-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack