Reid v. United States of America et al

Filing 40

ORDER denying 39 Motion to expedite initial screening signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 3/31/2016. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

GORDON C. REID,

11
12
13
14

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 1:14-cv-01163-LJO-MJS (PC)
ORDER
DENYING
MOTION
EXPEDITE INITIAL SCREENING

TO

v.
(ECF No. 39)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,
Defendants.

15
16
17

Plaintiff is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil

18

rights and tort action brought pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403

19

U.S. 388 (1971) and the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2671-2680.

20

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s “Motion to Expedite Initial Screening.” (ECF No. 39.)

21

Plaintiff initiated this action on July 25, 2014. (ECF No. 1.) His complaint was

22

screened four months later on November 24, 2014. (ECF No. 13.) The Court concluded

23

that Plaintiff failed to state a claim and he was given leave to amend. (Id.) Thereafter,

24

Plaintiff filed several motions for extensions of time (ECF Nos. 14, 15, 19), a variety of

25

other motions (ECF Nos. 16, 17, 18), and a baseless interlocutory appeal (ECF No. 20).

26

Following dismissal of his appeal on April 13, 2015 (ECF No. 23), Plaintiff’s

27

outstanding motions were resolved on April 27 and May 12, 2015, respectively (ECF

28
1

1

Nos. 24, 25). Plaintiff was ordered to file an amended complaint and did so on June 24,

2

2015. (ECF No. 28.) The first amended complaint was screened promptly on July 28,

3

2015, just over one month later. (ECF No. 31.) Plaintiff was ordered to file an amended

4

complaint or notify the Court of his willingness to proceed only on claims found to be

5

cognizable.

6

Plaintiff instead filed multiple motions for extensions of time (ECF Nos. 32, 35, 37)

7

and, ultimately, on October 26, 2015, a motion for reconsideration by the District Judge

8

(ECF No. 38). Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration presently remains pending before the

9

District Judge and will be addressed in due course.

10

Plaintiff’s complaint and first amended complaint were promptly screened by the

11

Court. Delays in moving this case past the screening stage are attributable for the most

12

part to Plaintiff’s numerous requests for extensions of time, as well as his interlocutory

13

appeal. As Plaintiff previously was informed (ECF No. 24), the Fresno Division of the

14

United States District Court for the Eastern District of California carries one of the busiest

15

dockets in the country. Despite this caseload, Plaintiff’s submissions have heretofore

16

promptly been addressed. The Court will endeavor to continue to do so. At the present

17

time, however, there is no pleading for the Court to screen and Plaintiff must await

18

disposition of his motion for reconsideration by the District Judge.

19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 31, 2016

/s/

22

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
2