Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Garcia v. Bitter, 1:13-cv-00599-LJO-SKO (PC). (2016)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20160510865 Visitors: 8
Filed: May 09, 2016
Latest Update: May 09, 2016
Summary: ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR STATUS (Doc. 82) SHEILA K. OBERTO , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff, Felipe Garcia, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. On May 5, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting a status on both Defendants' motion for summary judgment and on their motion to strike his surreply. (Doc. 82.) As stated in the First Informational Order issued on April 29, 2013, due to the large number of
More

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR STATUS

(Doc. 82)

Plaintiff, Felipe Garcia, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 5, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting a status on both Defendants' motion for summary judgment and on their motion to strike his surreply. (Doc. 82.) As stated in the First Informational Order issued on April 29, 2013, due to the large number of civil actions pending before the Court, individual inquiries regarding the status do not generally receive a response; to do so takes valuable, limited Court resources. (Doc. 3, p. 6.) As long as Plaintiff keeps his address with the Court current, he will receive all decisions which might affect the status of his case. (Id.)

The Court realizes that Plaintiff has had some concerns regarding whether prison staff at his current facility are delivering him mail pertaining to this action. Thus, in this one instance, Plaintiff will be provided the status of the motions upon which he inquires. Defendants' motion for summary judgment is in line for ruling with dispositive motions in other cases and will be ruled upon in due course. Defendants' motion to strike Plaintiff's surreply has recently been ruled on by separate order, which Plaintiff should receive around the same time as this order. Further requests for status, without justification for inquiry, will not be well received as scarce resources must be diverted from substantive matters to respond to such inquiries.

Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion filed on May 5, 2016, (Doc. 82), for status of Defendants' motion for summary judgment and to strike Plaintiff's surreply, is GRANTED to the extent the information provided in this order satisfies his inquiry.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer