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.

Tristan D. Allan v. Ruling Dr. Akanno

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


November 21, 2012

TRISTAN D. ALLAN,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
RULING DR. AKANNO, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Barbara A. McAuliffe United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER ADDRESSING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR TENTATIVE DATE OF (ECF No. 9.)

Plaintiff Tristan D. Allan is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action was filed on July 9, 2012. (ECF No. 1.) On July 12, 2012, an order issued denying Plaintiff's motion for service of the summons and complaint. (ECF No. 5.) In the order Plaintiff was informed that

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). The Court screens complaints in the order in which they are filed and strives to avoid delays whenever possible. However, there are hundreds of prisoner civil rights cases presently pending before the Court, and delays are inevitable despite the Court's best efforts. The Court will direct the United States Marshal to serve the complaint only after it has determined that the complaint contains cognizable claims for relief against the named defendants. Until the Court has screened the complaint and found cognizable claims, any request for service by the Marshal is premature and will be denied.

(Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Service of Summons and Complaint 1, ECF No. 5.) Plaintiff was also informed of this in the information order issued July 11, 2012. (First Informational Order ¶ 12, ECF No. 4.)

On November 19, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for a tentative date on when his complaint would be screened. Once Plaintiff's complaint is screened an order will issue informing Plaintiff. The Court is unable to provide a tentative date by which the complaint should be screened. In the first informational order Plaintiff was also advised that the Court does not provide litigants with the status of the case. (ECF No. 4 at ¶ 12.) Any further such requests for status of the action shall be stricken from the record.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20121121

© 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.