(PC) Garner v. Hill ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MARCUS ANDRE GARNER, Case No. 2:23-cv-00494-WBS-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 RICK HILL, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Defendant Warden Rick Hill removed this action from Sacramento County Superior 18 Court. ECF No. 1. Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se. The court screened plaintiff’s 19 complaint and notified him that it failed to allege a cognizable claim. ECF No. 9. After two 20 extensions of time, plaintiff filed his first amended complaint. ECF No. 14. Before the court had 21 an opportunity to screen the amended complaint as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, defendant 22 Hill filed a motion to dismiss. ECF No. 15. Plaintiff has filed a motion for an extension of time 23 to respond to Hill’s motion. ECF No. 16. Both motions are denied. 24 The court is required to screen all actions brought by prisoners who seek relief against a 25 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. This 26 obligation applies to amended complaints. See Rios v. Dragon, No. 2:20-cv-00146-ADA-HBK 27 (PC), 2022 WL 11324595, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 19, 2022) (“Screening orders are also appropriate 28 1 | on amended complaints.”). As the court has yet to screen plaintiff's amended complaint, 2 | defendant Hill’s motion to dismiss is denied as premature. See Gibbons v. Arpaio, No. cv 07- 3 | 1456 PHX SMM (JCG), 2007 WL 2990151, at *2 (D. AZ. Oct. 11, 2007) (denying a motion to 4 | dismiss as premature because the court had not screened the complaint); Rodriguez v. Taiarol, 5 | No. 2:21-cv-1958-DB (P), 2023 WL 2432490, at *1 CE.D. Cal. Mar. 9, 2023) (same). The court 6 | will screen the first amended complaint in due course and defendant may renew his motion to 7 | dismiss if appropriate. 8 Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that: 9 1. Defendant Hill’s motion to dismiss, ECF No. 15, is denied without prejudice to 10 | renewal after the court has screened the amended complaint. 11 2. Plaintiff's motion for an extension of time, ECF No. 16, is denied as moot. 12 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 ( iy - Dated: _ September 14, 2023 Q_——— 15 JEREMY D. PETERSON 16 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28