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.

Tracy Taylor v. Shay Ohannesson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


February 19, 2013

TRACY TAYLOR,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
SHAY OHANNESSON, ET AL.,
DEFENDANTS.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR COURT TO SCREEN COMPLAINT AND SERVE THE SUMMONS AND COMPLAINT (ECF No. 23)

Plaintiff Tracy Taylor ("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's civil action was originally filed on March 31, 2011 and a first amended complaint was filed on August 31, 2012. On August 13, 2012 and January 24, 2013, Plaintiff filed motions requesting the Court to screen his complaint. (ECF Nos. 13 & 21.) On January 28, 2013, the Court denied the motions for failure to show good cause. (ECF No. 22.) On February 15, 2013, Plaintiff filed a third motion requesting the Court to screen his complaint and serve the summons and complaint. (ECF No. 23.)

The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a government entity or officer or employee of a government entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). As noted previously, this Court and its staff takes its role serious in complying with statutes and other obligations under the United States Constitution and laws of the United States. As Plaintiff's case is not the only case under consideration by this Court and because cases are screened in the order in which they are filed, absent good cause, the Court will screen cases in that order and will continue strive to avoid delays whenever possible. Absent good cause, the Court will not entertain motions to have complaints screened before other similarly situated plaintiff's who also allege violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff's repetitive requests for screening only takes time away from the Court's ability to actually screen cases.

I find that Plaintiff's motion still does not establish good cause to have his case heard before other similarly situated cases. Accordingly,

Plaintiff's motion filed February 15, 2013 (ECF No. 23) is hereby DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

20130219

© 1992-2013 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.