Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by

PHILLIP J. LYONS, Plaintiff, v. CONNIE BISBEE, et al., Defendants.

ORDER

ROBERT McQUAID, Magistrate Judge

This is a pro se civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By order filed April 21, 2008, the Court granted plaintiff in forma pauperis status. (Docket #5). In the same order, the Court determined that the complaint states a cognizable claim for violation of plaintiff constitutional rights. (Docket #5, at p. 2). The defendants were accepted service in this action. (Docket #11).

On June 3, 2008, plaintiff filed a motion to amend and submitted an amended complaint. (Docket #16). On June 10, 2008, defendants filed a motion for screening of the amended complaint. (Docket #18). In the motion, defendants ask this Court to review the amended complaint to ensure that any added claims meet the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e. (Docket #18). By minute order filed June 12, 2008, defendants' motion for screening of the first amended complaint was granted. (Docket #20). Pursuant to the minute order, the amended complaint was filed. (Docket #21).

The amended complaint is a duplicate of the original complaint, with the exception of pages 48A and 48-B. No additional defendants were added with the amendment. The Court has previously determined that the original complaint states a colorable claim for violation of plaintiff's constitutional rights and is sufficient to withstand screening under § 1915A. The amendment to the complaint at pages 48A-48B, which alleges violation of plaintiff's constitutional rights in connection with a parole hearing, also states a colorable claim for violation of plaintiff's constitutional rights. The amended complaint is sufficient to withstand screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e, and the action may proceed on the amended complaint.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the amended complaint (Docket #21) is sufficient to withstand screening and the ACTION MAY PROCEED ON THE AMENDED COMPLAINT. Defendants shall file an answer or other responsive pleading to the amended complaint within thirty (30) days from the date of entry of this order.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

LYONS v. BISBEE
(Jul 2, 2008)