BRACY v. CITY OF PHOENIX, CV-15-02347-PHX-JAT. (2015)
Court: District Court, D. Arizona
Number: infdco20151224655
Visitors: 8
Filed: Dec. 23, 2015
Latest Update: Dec. 23, 2015
Summary: ORDER JAMES A. TEILBORG , District Judge . Pending before the Court is Defendants' motion for screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e) which includes an argument for why this Court should dismiss this case at the screening stage. Because the filing fee was paid before the Federal Court, and because Plaintiff is not in custody, this Court finds no basis to screen the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e). Accordingly, the motion will be denied. Defendants shall answer or otherwise respo
Summary: ORDER JAMES A. TEILBORG , District Judge . Pending before the Court is Defendants' motion for screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e) which includes an argument for why this Court should dismiss this case at the screening stage. Because the filing fee was paid before the Federal Court, and because Plaintiff is not in custody, this Court finds no basis to screen the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e). Accordingly, the motion will be denied. Defendants shall answer or otherwise respon..
More
ORDER
JAMES A. TEILBORG, District Judge.
Pending before the Court is Defendants' motion for screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) which includes an argument for why this Court should dismiss this case at the screening stage. Because the filing fee was paid before the Federal Court, and because Plaintiff is not in custody, this Court finds no basis to screen the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). Accordingly, the motion will be denied. Defendants shall answer or otherwise respond to the complaint (including filing a motion to dismiss on the same or different grounds as those identified in the motion for screening if they deem that to be the appropriate course) as set forth below.
IT IS ORDERED that the motion for screening (part of Doc. 4) is denied. The motion to dismiss (part of Doc. 4) is denied without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall answer or otherwise respond to the complaint by January 12, 2016.
Source: Leagle
