Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Brady K. Armstrong v. M. Martinez

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


July 26, 2012

BRADY K. ARMSTRONG,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
M. MARTINEZ, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Gary S. Austin United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO EXPEDITE CASE (Doc. 8)

Brady K. Armstrong ("plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the complaint commencing this action on April 20, 2012. (Doc. 1.) On April 26, 2012, the Court entered an order requiring Plaintiff to pay the filing fee for this action or submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). (Doc. 3.) On May 18, 2012, Plaintiff submitted an application in compliance with the Court's order, and on May 21, 2012, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis. (Docs. 4, 7.)

On July 25, 2012, plaintiff filed a motion for the court to expedite his case, asserting that he "has 'NOT' received any court correspondances (sic) since said time of on or about April 27, 2012." (Motion at 1:27-28.)

The court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). As a rule, the court screens complaints in the order in which they are filed and strives to avoid delays whenever possible. Plaintiff's complaint will be screened in due time. Plaintiff has not shown good cause for the court to expedite the screening of his complaint.

Plaintiff asserts that he has not received any response from the court since April 2012. The court's order granting Plaintiff leave to proceed in forma pauperis was served upon Plaintiff at his address-of-record on May 21, 2012, and the mail has not been returned. (Doc. 7.) Plaintiff has not notified the court of any change of address. Plaintiff is cautioned that he must keep the court apprised of his current address, or his case may be dismissed. L.R. 182(f).

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for the court to expedite his case is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20120726

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.