Tristan Allan v. Akanno

Filing 10

ORDER Addressing 9 Plaintiff's Motion for Tentative Date of Ruling signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 11/21/2012. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

TRISTAN D. ALLAN,

10

CASE NO. 1:12-cv–01103-BAM PC

Plaintiff,

11

v.

12

ORDER ADDRESSING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR TENTATIVE DATE OF
RULING

DR. AKANNO,

13

(ECF No. 9.)
Defendant.
/

14
15

Plaintiff Tristan D. Allan is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this

16

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action was filed on July 9, 2012. (ECF No.

17

1.) On July 12, 2012, an order issued denying Plaintiff’s motion for service of the summons and

18

complaint. (ECF No. 5.) In the order Plaintiff was informed that

19
20
21
22
23
24

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.

25
26

(Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Service of Summons and Complaint 1, ECF No. 5.) Plaintiff

27

was also informed of this in the information order issued July 11, 2012. (First Informational Order

28

¶ 12, ECF No. 4.)
1

1

On November 19, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for a tentative date on when his complaint

2

would be screened. Once Plaintiff’s complaint is screened an order will issue informing Plaintiff.

3

The Court is unable to provide a tentative date by which the complaint should be screened. In the

4

first informational order Plaintiff was also advised that the Court does not provide litigants with the

5

status of the case. (ECF No. 4 at ¶ 12.) Any further such requests for status of the action shall be

6

stricken from the record.

7
8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
cm411

November 21, 2012

/s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2