1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 ROBERT C. DENHAM JR., et al., Case No. 2:21-cv-00049-KJD-BNW

4 Plaintiffs ORDER

5 v.

6 JAMES DZURENDA, et al.,

7 Defendants

8 This is a civil rights action initiated by a former state prisoner. (ECF No. 1.) Plaintiff 9 has paid the $402 filing fee in full. (ECF No. 1-2.) Plaintiff has submitted a motion to file 10 an amended complaint. (ECF No 5.) Plaintiff’s amended complaint is attached as Exhibit 11 A. (Id. at 8-28.) The Court grants Plaintiff’s motion and accepts the amended complaint 12 as the operative complaint in this case. The Court will not screen Plaintiff’s amended 13 complaint because screening is not authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) or

1915(e)(2). 15 A federal court must conduct a preliminary screening in any case in which a 16 prisoner, including a pretrial detainee, brings an action seeking redress from a 17 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity.

1915A(a). Plaintiff was formerly a state prisoner, and he brings his complaint against 19 various state prison officials. But Plaintiff was not a prisoner at the time that he filed his 20 complaint. As such, a screening order is not authorized by 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). 21 Nor does the screening provision of § 1915(e)(2) apply to this case. Under that 22 statute, the court is authorized to screen a case when the plaintiff is proceeding in forma 23 pauperis. See

(e)(2); Lopez v. Smith,

(9th Cir. 24 2000) (holding that “§ 1915(e) applies to all in forma pauperis complaints, not just those 25 filed by prisoners”). However, Plaintiff has paid the filing fee in full. 26 Accordingly, the Court does not have authorization to screen Plaintiff’s amended 27 complaint. This case will proceed on the normal litigation track as guided by the Federal 1 It is therefore ordered that the Court accepts the amended complaint (ECF No. 5 2|| at 8-28) as the operative complaint in this case. The Clerk of the Court will file the 3|| amended complaint. 4 It is further ordered that the Court will not issue a screening order in this case. 5 It is further ordered that this case shall proceed on the normal litigation track as guided by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 8 DATED THIS 19° day of April 2021. | CS 9 yo 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT □□□□□ 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28