Holt v. Gardner, 1:19-cv-00772-LJO-SAB (PC). (2019)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20191223920
Visitors: 8
Filed: Dec. 20, 2019
Latest Update: Dec. 20, 2019
Summary: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR EXPEDITED SCREENING OF COMPLAINT [ECF No. 28] STANLEY A. BOONE , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff Calvin Holt is appearing pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. On December 18, 2019, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, along with a motion "for direct screening of second amended complaint." (ECF No. 28.) As Plaintiff was advised in the First Informational Order, "[t]his Court screens pro se plaintiff's complaints as expedi
Summary: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR EXPEDITED SCREENING OF COMPLAINT [ECF No. 28] STANLEY A. BOONE , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff Calvin Holt is appearing pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. On December 18, 2019, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, along with a motion "for direct screening of second amended complaint." (ECF No. 28.) As Plaintiff was advised in the First Informational Order, "[t]his Court screens pro se plaintiff's complaints as expedit..
More
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR EXPEDITED SCREENING OF COMPLAINT
[ECF No. 28]
STANLEY A. BOONE, Magistrate Judge.
Plaintiff Calvin Holt is appearing pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On December 18, 2019, Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint, along with a motion "for direct screening of second amended complaint." (ECF No. 28.) As Plaintiff was advised in the First Informational Order, "[t]his Court screens pro se plaintiff's complaints as expeditiously as possible. However, the Court has an extremely large number of pro se plaintiff civil rights cases pending before it, and delay is inevitable. As long as a party keeps the Court informed of the party's current address, the Court will provide notice of all actions which might affect the case as soon as an action is taken in the case." (ECF No. 3, Order at III (C).) The Court is aware of Plaintiff's action and will screen the complaint in due course. Plaintiff is advised that the Court will not file or respond in writing to any future requests for status of the case. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion to expedite the screening of his complaint is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
