Jacobs v. Quinones et al

Filing 16

ORDER Denying Motion For Ruling (Doc. 14 ), ORDER Denying Motion To Preserve Evidence (Doc. 15 ), signed by Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 6/20/2012. (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GEORGE E. JACOBS,

12

Plaintiff

13
14

v.
A.C. QUINONES, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:10-cv-02349 AWI JLT
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RULING
(Doc. 14.)
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO PRESERVE
EVIDENCE
(Doc. 15).

17

Plaintiff George E. Jacobs IV (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

18

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Although Plaintiff’s complaint relates

19

to incidents that occurred in 2007, Plaintiff did not file his initial complaint until December 2010.

20

Presently before this Court are the following motions: 1) Plaintiffs’ motion for a ruling (Doc. 14) and

21

2) Plaintiff’s motion to preserve evidence. (Doc. 15).

22

1.

23

Plaintiff urges this Court to screen his second amended complaint and “move the process

24

along” because it is approaching five years from the date of the incident. (Doc. 14). The Court is

25

well-aware of the need to screen his complaint. Thus, Plaintiff’s motion is unnecessary. To the extent

26

Plaintiff seeks an expedited ruling or a ruling by a certain date, Plaintiff is advised that this Court has

27

by far, the highest weighted caseload per judge in the entire country.

Motion for Ruling

28
1

The Court cannot place

1

Plaintiff’s case ahead of the numerous other cases that also need to be screened. Plaintiff’s operative

2

complaint will be screened in due course.

3

II.

4

On June 19, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting the Court to order defendants to preserve

5

all video tapes, data, log books, personnel records and other pertinent material evidence relating to his

6

September 12, 2007 incident. (Doc. 15.) Plaintiff believes that such evidence will be destroyed,

7

pursuant to retention policies, in September of this year. (Id.) The Court has yet to determine whether

8

Plaintiff’s complaint states a cognizable claim and therefore has not yet ordered service of the

9

complaint upon any defendant. Accordingly, at this early stage of the litigation, the Court declines to

10

Motion to Preserve Evidence

entertain any requests for the preservation of alleged evidence.
2.

11

Conclusion

12

Based upon the information set forth above IT IS ORDERED:

13

a. That Plaintiff’s motion for a ruling is DENIED in so far as it requests an expedited
ruling or a ruling by a date certain; and

14

b. That Plaintiff’s motion to preserve evidence is DENIED.

15
16
17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19
20
21

Dated:

June 20, 2012

/s/ Jennifer L. Thurston
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DEAC_Signature-END:

9j7khijed

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2