BLACKWELL v. DELK

Full title: RODNEY KARL BLACKWELL, Plaintiff, v. A. DELK, et al., Defendants

Court: United States District Court, E.D. California

Date published: Jan 14, 2008

1:07-cv-00973-AWI-SMS-PC (E.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2008)

Opinion

1:07-cv-00973-AWI-SMS-PC.

January 14, 2008

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR SCREENING ORDER ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT (Doc. 3)

SANDRA SNYDER, Magistrate Judge

This is a civil action filed by plaintiff Rodney Karl Blackwell ("plaintiff"), a state prisoner proceeding pro se. The action was removed from the Fresno County Superior Court to this court by defendant California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation ("CDCR") on July 5, 2007, as a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On July 5, 2007, defendant CDCR filed a motion for the court to screen plaintiff's complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and to grant CDCR an extension of time in which to file a responsive pleading. On July 23, 2007, plaintiff filed a response in opposition to the motion.

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). Plaintiff's complaint alleges that on January 20, 2006, his due process and equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment and the California Constitution were violated when defendant A. Delk ("Delk"), a correctional officer at Pleasant Valley State Prison, disposed of items of plaintiff's personal property and failed to compensate him for the value of the items. Plaintiff also alleges violations of his rights under California tort law when Delk deprived him of his property. Because CDCR is a California state entity and Delk was employed as a correctional officer at a state prison when the alleged events occurred, the court is required to screen the complaint. Therefore, CDCR's motion for the court to screen the complaint shall be granted. In addition, good cause appearing, the motion for extension of time shall be granted.

Plaintiff argues that CDCR is not a defendant in this action and that Delk is the sole defendant. Plaintiff is advised that he may bring a motion to dismiss CDCR from this action.

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendant CDCR's motion for the court to screen the complaint is GRANTED, and the court shall issue a screening order in due time;

2. Defendant CDCR is GRANTED an extension of time until thirty days from the date of service of the court's screening order in which to file a response to the complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED.