Opinion
CASE NO. 1:10-cv-156-LJO-MJS (PC)
09-19-2011
CLAUDELL EARL MARTIN, Plaintiff, v. LOADHOLT, Defendant.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR REASSIGNMENT
(ECF No. 9)
Plaintiff Claudell Earl Martin ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
This action was initiated on February 1, 2010. (Compl., ECF No. 1.) The Court has yet to screen Plaintiff's Complaint. Plaintiff's May 23, 2011, Motion for Reassignment is now before the Court. (Mot., ECF No. 9.)
Plaintiff asks that this case be reassigned because it has been pending for over a year; he wants it reassigned to a judge who can process it faster. (Mot. at 3.) Plaintiff argues that the Court's failure to screen the Complaint within a year "can't be seen as promoting Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 1." (Id.) Plaintiff also argues that his Complaint needs be screened in a timely manner to ensure him a full and fair hearing. (Id. at 4.)
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). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally "frivolous or malicious," that 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). The Court will direct the United States Marshal to serve Plaintiff's Complaint only after the Court has screened the Complaint and determined that it contains cognizable claims for relief against the named Defendant.
Although the Court is sympathetic to Plaintiff's concerns about the delay in screening his Complaint, all of the Judges of the Eastern District Court have a large number of prisoner civil rights cases pending before them. Reassignment would not likely affect the timing of screening. The Court will screen Plaintiff's Complaint in due course. Plaintiff's grounds for moving for reassignment do not justify reassignment..
Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for Reassignment is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE ____