Garcia v. Beard et al

Filing 17

ORDER denying 16 Motion for Telephonic Conference signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 12/11/2014. (Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FELIPE GARCIA, 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, vs. 1:14-cv-00625-LJO-GSA-PC ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR TELEPHONIC CONFERENCE (Doc. 16.) JEFFREY A. BEARD, et al., Defendants. 16 17 18 19 Felipe Garcia (APlaintiff@) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action 20 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on April 21 28, 2014. (Doc. 1.) 22 On December 8, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for the court to schedule a telephonic 23 conference before District Judge Lawrence J. O’Neill for Plaintiff to discuss the status of this 24 case and request expedited screening of the Complaint. (Doc. 16.) Plaintiff asserts that he filed 25 a motion for permanent injunction and temporary restraining order on August 6, 2014, which 26 has not been resolved. Plaintiff also requests immediate screening of his Complaint, “due to 27 the seriousness of the allegations included in the Complaint.” (Doc. 16 at 2 ¶5.) Plaintiff seeks 28 a conference to discuss the need to seal all of the documents in this case and the case that gave 1 1 rise to this case, 1:13-cv-00599-LJO-SKO-PC, Garcia v. Biter. Plaintiff asserts that he is in 2 jeopardy of correctional officers illegally obtaining copies of his case documents to influence 3 other inmates to assault Plaintiff, as was done at Kern Valley State Prison and the California 4 Correctional Institution in Tehachapi. Plaintiff seeks to request a permanent restraining order 5 and an order granting him single cell status. 6 permanent injunction and temporary restraining order be granted. Plaintiff also requests that his motion for 7 Discussion 8 Plaintiff is advised that under Local Rule 230(l), motions in prisoner cases are 9 submitted on the record without oral argument, with few exceptions. L.R. 230(l). Such 10 motions are not noticed on the Court=s motion calendar. 11 In exceptional circumstances, the Court may conduct in-court or telephonic proceedings 12 to resolve motions in a prisoner case such as Plaintiff=s. However, in this instance, the Court 13 does not find exceptional circumstances or good cause to schedule a telephonic conference. 14 Plaintiff should file a written motion or motions with the Court to resolve his issues.1 15 Plaintiff=s motion for a telephonic status conference shall be denied. 16 With respect to Plaintiff’s request for immediate screening of his Complaint, Plaintiff is 17 advised that the Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners, such as Plaintiff, 18 seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 19 28 U.S.C. ' 1915A(a). This Court has hundreds of civil cases pending before it. The Court 20 ordinarily screens complaints in the order in which they are filed and strives to avoid delays 21 whenever possible. Plaintiff's Complaint will be screened in due time. 22 A cursory review of Plaintiff=s Complaint shows that he has requested monetary 23 damages, declaratory relief, and an injunction requiring the CDCR to change its hiring 24 practices and policies. None of this relief, even if immediate, would resolve plaintiff=s claim 25 that he is presently in jeopardy of correctional officers illegally obtaining copies of his case 26 documents, or resolve his request for single cell status. Plaintiff has not shown good cause for 27 1 28 Any motions in Plaintiff’s case 1:13-cv-00599-LJO-SKO-PC, Garcia v. Biter, must be brought in that case. 2 1 the court to expedite the screening of his Complaint. Therefore, Plaintiff=s request for 2 expedited screening shall be denied. 3 Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s motion, filed on December 8, 2014, is DENIED. 4 5 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 11, 2014 /s/ Gary S. Austin UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?