Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Garcia v. Nevada, 2:19-cv-00825-APG-CWH. (2019)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20190620c61 Visitors: 25
Filed: Jun. 19, 2019
Latest Update: Jun. 19, 2019
Summary: ORDER C.W. HOFFMAN, JR. , Magistrate Judge . Presently before the court is defendants James Greg Cox, Nevada Department of Corrections, Nevada Department of Public Safety, Nevada Parole Board, and the State of Nevada's status report (ECF No. 7), filed on June 12, 2019. Defendants request that the court screen plaintiff's complaint under 28 U.S.C. 1915A(a) and that the court should determine whether the case should be referred to the Inmate Early Mediation Program. Under 28 U.S.C. 1915A
More

ORDER

Presently before the court is defendants James Greg Cox, Nevada Department of Corrections, Nevada Department of Public Safety, Nevada Parole Board, and the State of Nevada's status report (ECF No. 7), filed on June 12, 2019. Defendants request that the court screen plaintiff's complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and that the court should determine whether the case should be referred to the Inmate Early Mediation Program.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court must identify any cognizable claims and dismiss any claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1), (2). In doing so, the court applies the same the standard for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Watison v. Carter, 668 F.3d 1108, 1112 (9th Cir. 2012). The purpose of § 1915A is to prevent defendants from having to respond to frivolous or malicious lawsuits and to conserve judicial resources by dismissing these types of cases at an early stage. See Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2014) (stating that the "purpose of § 1915A is to ensure that the targets of frivolous or malicious suits need not bear the expense of responding" (quotation omitted)); O'Neal v. Price, 531 F.3d 1146, 1153 (9th Cir. 2008) (explaining that the PLRA's screening provision was intended to "conserve judicial resources by authorizing district courts to dismiss nonmeritorious prisoner complaints at an early stage").

Given that a PLRA screening aims to conserve judicial resources, the court declines to screen the complaint because defendants have filed a motion to dismiss that utilizes the same 12(b)(6) standard the court would employ in screening the complaint. (See Mot. to Dismiss (ECF No. 3).) Further, the court denies the request that the case be referred to the Inmate Early Mediation Program, as the facts at issue are not suited for the program.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendants' request is DENIED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer