Opinion
Case No. 3:16-cv-00141-RCJ-WGC
10-12-2016
BENJAMIN W. ESPINOSA et al., Plaintiffs, v. JOSEPH STOGNER et al., Defendants.
ORDER
I. DISCUSSION
Plaintiff is a prisoner in the custody of the Nevada Department of Corrections ("NDOC"). (ECF No. 8 at 2). On October 5, 2016, Plaintiff, represented by counsel, filed an amended civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 8). In a previous order, the Court granted Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 6 at 7).
Plaintiff initiated this case as a pro se plaintiff. (ECF No. 1). --------
The general rule under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A is that "[t]he court shall review . . . a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner seeks redress from the governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity" and "shall identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any portion of the complaint" if it is "frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; or . . . seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief." 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a), (b).
Section 1915A does not expressly differentiate between represented and unrepresented prisoner cases with regard to screening, and there is no authority addressing this issue. This Court typically does not screen § 1983 prisoner cases where the Plaintiff is represented by counsel. For one thing, the pleading obligations of an attorney under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 tend to substantially reduce the incidence of claims that are frivolous or otherwise patently noncognizable on their face. Pro se litigants are not attorneys and should not be expected to know how to draft pleadings as if they were. Judicial screening of prisoner complaints serves to prevent prisoner complaints which are truly difficult, if not impossible to understand, from being served upon defendants. Screening of represented cases to decipher the allegations and claims is usually unnecessary. See, e.g., Nordstrom v. Ryan, 762 F.3d 903, 907 n.1 (9th Cir. 2014) (noting that the "purpose of § 1915A is to ensure that the targets of frivolous or malicious suits need not bear the expense of responding"); 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"). As such, the Court will not screen this counseled prisoner case. This case shall proceed on the normal litigation track as guided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
II. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, IT IS ORDERED that the Court will not issue a screening order on the amended complaint (ECF No. 8) in this case.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case shall proceed on the normal litigation track as guided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, in light of this Court's order (ECF No. 6) granting Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis, Plaintiff shall not be required to pay an initial installment fee. Nevertheless, the full filing fee shall still be due, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, as amended by the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act. The movant herein is permitted to maintain this action to conclusion without the necessity of prepayment of fees or costs or the giving of security therefor. This order granting in forma pauperis status shall not extend to the issuance and/or service of subpoenas at government expense.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, as amended by the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act, the Nevada Department of Corrections shall pay to the Clerk of the United States District Court, District of Nevada, 20% of the preceding month's deposits to the account of Benjamin Espinosa , #74296 (in months that the account exceeds $10.00) until the full $350 filing fee has been paid for this action. The Clerk shall send a copy of this order to the attention of Albert G. Peralta, Chief of Inmate Services for the Nevada Department of Prisons, P.O. Box 7011, Carson City, NV 89702.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, even if this action is dismissed, or is otherwise unsuccessful, the full filing fee shall still be due, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915, as amended by the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff American Humanist Association is ordered to pay the full $400 filing fee for a civil action on or before Friday, October 21, 2016. If Plaintiff American Humanist Association fails to pay the full $400 filing fee by this date, the Court will dismiss Plaintiff American Humanist Association, with prejudice, from this case.
DATED: October 12, 2016.
/s/_________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE