Whatley v. Valdovinos
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Cathy Ann Bencivengo (author)
Analysis
Defendant G. Valdovinos filed an ex parte application requesting that the court screen the Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and seeking an extension of time to file a responsive pleading. The court denied the screening request as inappropriate but granted the extension, suspending the deadline until the SAC is served on co-defendant Romero.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Application for court to screen the Second Amended Complaint is denied.“The application for the court to screen the SAC is DENIED as the requested relief is inappropriate.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that 28 U.S.C. § 1915A mandates screening by the court, not by the defendant, and that defendants generally cannot request the court to perform sua sponte actions under this statute. The reliance on Rincon v. Cate supports the proposition that such a request is procedurally improper. |
Request for extension of time to file a responsive pleading is granted.“Defendant Valdovinos’ request for an extension of time to file a responsive pleading to the SAC is GRANTED.” | agree with court The court exercised its discretion to manage the docket by suspending the deadline until service on a co-defendant is complete. This is a standard case management decision to ensure all defendants have equal time to respond based on the date of service. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It correctly applies the principle that § 1915A screening is a judicial function not triggered by defendant motion, and it grants a reasonable case management extension to align deadlines with service on all defendants.
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