The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 CARL BENTLY MARION II, Case No.: 1:24-cv-000872-KES-SKO
12 Plaintiff, ORDER STRIKING ORDER SETTING
MANDATORY SETTLEMENT
13 v. CONFERENCE
14 EDGAR OREGEL, et al., (Doc. 5)
15 Defendants. ORDER VACATING INITIAL
SCHEDULING CONFERENCE SET FOR
16 OCTOBER 31, 2024
17
18
19 Plaintiff Carl Bently Marion II is a prisoner proceeding with counsel in this civil rights
20 action.
21 I. INTRODUCTION
22 Plaintiff filed his complaint on July 30, 2024. (Doc. 1.) Summonses and new civil case
23 documents issued the following day. (Docs. 2-5.)
24 On August 1, 2024, the Court issued its Order Directing Clerk’s Office to Re-Designate
25 Action From 440 (Civil Rights: Other) to 550 (Conditions of Confinement). (Doc. 6.)
26 II. DISCUSSION
27 Considering the redesignation of this action from a 440 action to a 550 action, the Court
1 will vacate the Initial Scheduling Conference set for October 31, 2024. The Court will issue new
2 case documents for this prisoner civil rights action—rather than those issued for a regular civil
3 action—separately.
4 The complaint in this action is subject to screening pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1915. Whether
5 Plaintiff is represented by counsel is not relevant because “[t]he court is required to screen
6 complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or
7 employee of a governmental entity, regardless of whether plaintiff is represented by counsel.”
8 Parks v. Rolfing, No. 2:15-cv-1505-CKD-P, 2018 WL 2128393, at *2 (E.D. Cal. May 9, 2018);
9 Rios v. Dragon, No. 2:20-cv-00146-ADA-HBK (PC), 2022 WL 11324595, at *1, 3 (E.D. Cal.
10 Oct. 19, 2022) (citing Parks v. Rohlfing and denying motion to dismiss as premature because
11 court has not yet screened complaint); Munoz v. California Department of Corrections, No. 1:16-
12 CV-01103-LJO-MJS, 2016 WL 6298533, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2016) (screening former state
13 prisoner’s complaint who is represented by counsel in § 1983 action); see also Rojas v. Brown,
14 No. 1:17-cv-01514-DAD-JLT, 2021 WL 4811180, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 15, 2021); Johnson v.
15 Hall, No. 2:19-cv-1752-KJN-P, 2019 WL 4392413, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 13, 2019); Medina v.
16 Kernan, No. 1:19-cv-00345-DAD-JLT, 2021 WL 5179899, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2021).
17 Although at least one judge of this district has found the screening of complaints to be optional
18 when plaintiffs are proceeding with counsel (see Simmonds v. CDCR, 49 F.Supp.3d 700, 701
19 (E.D. Cal. 2014)), this Court is unaware of any decision barring the screening of a represented
20 prisoner's complaint.
21 III. CONCLUSION AND ORDER
22 For the reasons stated above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
23 1. The Order Setting Mandatory Scheduling Conference issued July 31, 2024 (Doc. 5) is
24 STRICKEN;
25 2. The Initial Scheduling Conference set for October 31, 2024, at 9:30 a.m., is
26 VACATED;
27 3. The Court will issue new case documents for this prisoner civil rights action
1 4. The Court will screen Plaintiff’s complaint (Doc. 1) filed July 30, 2024, in due course1
2 and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a).
3
IT IS SO ORDERED.
4
5 Dated: August 6, 2024 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 1 Plaintiff is advised this Court is one of the busiest district courts in the nation and dozens of prisoner civil
rights complaints await screening. All judges in this district carry heavy caseloads and delays are
inevitable.