Ramos-Quirarte v. Omandac ( 2023 )

2 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 5 5 LUCIA RAMOS-QUIRARTE, Case No.: 2:23-cv-01778-RFB-NJK 6 6 Plaintiff, 7 ORDER 7 v. 8 8 BETTY T. OMANDAC, et al., 9 9 Defendants. 10 10 11 Plaintiff Lucia Ramos-Quirarte, who was previously in the custody of the Nevada 11 12 Department of Corrections, filed a complaint in state court, which Defendants have removed to 12 13 this Court. Docket Nos. 1, 1-2. It appears from the documents and the removal statement that 13 14 removal to federal court was proper. 14 15 Federal courts must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which an incarcerated 15 16 person seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 16 17 See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). However, based on the allegations in the complaint, it appears that 17 18 Plaintiff was no longer incarcerated when she filed the complaint. Docket No. 1-2. As such, the 18 19 screening requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915A do not apply to this case. See Olivas v. Nevada ex 19 20 rel. Dep't of Corr., 856 F.3d 1281, 1284 (9th Cir. 2017) (holding “that a court may screen a 20 21 complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A only if, at the time the plaintiff files the complaint, he is 21 22 ‘incarcerated or detained’”). Accordingly, this case is removed from the screening pool and will 22 23 proceed according to standard litigation practices. 23 24 /// 24 25 /// 25 26 /// 26 27 /// 27 28 28 1 Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, 2 IT IS ORDERED that the Court will not screen the complaint, and this case will proceed 3} along a standard litigation track. 4 DATED: December 8, 2023. 5 og 7 NANCY 13 “OPPE — UNITED-STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28