Garcia v. Beard et al

Filing 20

ORDER re Plaintiff's 19 Request for Status, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 2/23/15. (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

FELIPE GARCIA,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
vs.

1:14-cv-00625-LJO-GSA-PC
ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S REQUEST FOR
STATUS
(Doc. 19.)

JEFFREY A. BEARD, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18

Felipe Garcia (APlaintiff@) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action

19

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. On January 9, 2015, Plaintiff filed a request for status of his

20

case. (Doc. 19.)

21

The court does not ordinarily respond in writing to requests for status of cases. As a

22

one-time courtesy, the court offers this response, but Plaintiff should not continue to file written

23

requests for status of his case. Plaintiff shall receive notice in this action as a matter of course. 1

24
25
26
27

1

Plaintiff is required to keep the court informed of his current mailing address. Local Rule 182(f)
provides: “Each appearing attorney and pro se party is under a continuing duty to notify the Clerk and all other
parties of any change of address or telephone number of the attorney or the pro se party. Absent such notice,
service of documents at the prior address of the attorney or pro se party shall be fully effective. Separate notice
shall be filed and served on all parties in each action in which an appearance has been made.”

28
1

1

All documents filed in this action shall be served upon all parties who have appeared in this

2

action, including Plaintiff. Plaintiff can be assured that he will receive notice, at his address of

3

record, of rulings made in this case and deadlines established in this case, provided he keeps the

4

court informed of his current address.

5

The court ordinarily screens complaints in the order in which they are filed at the court

6

and strives to avoid delays whenever possible. However, there are hundreds of prisoner civil

7

rights cases presently pending before the court, and delays are inevitable despite the court=s best

8

efforts. Plaintiff’s Complaint will be screened in due time.

9
10

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s request for status of his case, filed on January 19,
2015, is RESOLVED.

11
12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

February 23, 2015

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

23
24
25
26
27
28
2