ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S APPLICATION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (Doc. 47)

ORDER VACATING SCHEDULING/ORDER PENDING SCREENING OF THE COMPLAINT (Doc. 23)

SHEILA K. OBERTO, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff, Randy Langley, is a prisoner in the custody of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and is housed at the Sierra Conservation Center. On February 5, 2016, Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed a Complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of Tulare, against Defendants "Tulare Police Department," "Officer Colejio," and "Doe 1," alleging causes of action for "[g]eneral [n]egligence," "[i]ntentional [t]ort," "false imprisonment, battery, cruel and unusual punishment, wrongful prosecution, conviction, violation of civil rights, [and] police misconduct/brutality" arising out of his arrest by Defendants. (Doc. 2, Ex. 1 at 7-11.) Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages and punitive damages in the amount of $100 million. (Id. at 9.)

Defendant City of Tulare (erroneously named as Tulare Police Department) filed their answer in state court and, on March 10, 2016, removed the action to this Court. (Doc. 2.) On July 20, 2017, Plaintiff filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915. (Doc. 47.) Plaintiff has made the showing required § 1915(a) and accordingly, the request to proceed in forma pauperis will be granted.

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). A complaint, or portion thereof must be dismissed if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii). This case was removed to this Court by Defendant City of Tulare1 such that Plaintiff only recently filed his application to proceed in forma pauperis and none of Plaintiff's claims have been screened. However, a scheduling order has issued under which the parties are presumably engaging in discovery. (See Doc. 23.)

At a mere glance, it is apparent to the Court that not all of the claims Plaintiff asserts in the Complaint are cognizable. It would be a waste of limited judicial resources, as well as both time and effort by the parties, for this case to proceed without screening. As such, it is reasonable to vacate the dates set in the scheduling order, including deadlines for discovery, until the Complaint has been screened and cognizable claims have been found on which Plaintiff may proceed. See, e.g., Marshall v. Stanton, No. CIV S-04-1694 LKK PAN P, 2006 WL 2382271, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 17, 2006).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that

IT IS SO ORDERED.

I, RANDY LANELEY, declare that I am the plaintiff in the above-entitled proceeding; that, in support of my request to proceed without prepayment of fees under 28 U.S.C. section 1915, I declare that I am unable to pay the fees for these proceedings or give security therefor and that I am entitled to the relief sought in the complaint.

In support of this application, I answer the following questions under penalty of perjury:

If "yes" state the place of your incarceration Slerra Conservation Center

Have the institution fill out the Certificate portion of this application and attach a certified copy of your prison trust account statement showing transactions for the past six months.

a. If the answer is "yes" state the amount of your pay. $16. Monthly

b. If the answer is "no" state the date of your last employment, the amount of your take-home salary or wages and pay period, and the name and address of your last employer.

3. Have you received any money from the following sources over the last twelve months?