Torres v. New Mexico Corrections Department, 19-159 WJ/CG. (2019)
Court: District Court, D. New Mexico
Number: infdco20190306f70
Visitors: 17
Filed: Mar. 05, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 05, 2019
Summary: ORDER REGARDING INITIAL REVIEW CARMEN E. GARZA , Chief Magistrate Judge . THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff's pro se Civil Rights Tort Complaint, (Doc. 1-1). Defendant removed the Complaint to this Court on February 27, 2019. (Doc. 1). Because Plaintiff is an inmate who seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer, the Court must screen the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915A. Sua sponte dismissal is required if the Complaint fails to state a cognizable claim or
Summary: ORDER REGARDING INITIAL REVIEW CARMEN E. GARZA , Chief Magistrate Judge . THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff's pro se Civil Rights Tort Complaint, (Doc. 1-1). Defendant removed the Complaint to this Court on February 27, 2019. (Doc. 1). Because Plaintiff is an inmate who seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer, the Court must screen the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915A. Sua sponte dismissal is required if the Complaint fails to state a cognizable claim or s..
More
ORDER REGARDING INITIAL REVIEW
CARMEN E. GARZA, Chief Magistrate Judge.
THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff's pro se Civil Rights Tort Complaint, (Doc. 1-1). Defendant removed the Complaint to this Court on February 27, 2019. (Doc. 1). Because Plaintiff is an inmate who seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer, the Court must screen the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Sua sponte dismissal is required if the Complaint fails to state a cognizable claim or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune. See 28 U.S.C. §1915A(b). Section 1997(e) of Title 42 further provides that a defendant may decline to reply to any action brought by an inmate until the Court orders a response. See 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(g)(1)-(2). Finally, prisoner petitions are excluded from pre-trial case management procedures, including discovery obligations, under the Court's local rules. See D.N.M. LR-16.3(d). Based on these authorities, the Court will excuse all further obligations of the parties until the screening process is complete.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, until further Order by the Court, the parties are excused from any pre-screening obligations, including responding to the other party's filings. Once screening is complete, the Court will enter a separate order either dismissing the Complaint or requiring Defendants to file a responsive pleading.
Source: Leagle
