Forte v. Merced County, et al.

Filing 26

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's Ex Parte Motions (Docs. 22, 24, 25). Finally, Plaintiffs request to file documents electronically in the Courts CM/ECF system is also DENIED. Plaintiffs First Amended Complaint is pending and will be screened in due course. Until such time as Plaintiff is found to state a cognizable claim pursuant to screening standards, Plaintiff is denied electronic filing status. signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 12/15/2015. (Herman, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9

EUGENE E. FORTE,
Plaintiff,

10
11
12
13

CASE NO. 1:15-cv-0147 KJM-BAM
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EX
PARTE MOTIONS

v.

(Docs. 22, 24, 25).

MERCED COUNTY, et al.,
Defendants.

14

/

15
16

The Court has received and reviewed the multiple ex parte requests by plaintiff. (Docs. 22, 24,

17

25). Plaintiff filed ex parte applications requesting service of his First Amended Complaint on the

18

thirty-seven defendants named in this action.

19

scheduling order and a ruling on his request to participate in electronic filing via CM/ECF. Plaintiff’s

20

requests are DENIED.

Plaintiff also requests the issuance of a pre-trial

21

Plaintiff is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42

22

U.S.C. § 1983, 1985, 1986, and 1988. In cases involving a plaintiff proceeding in forma pauperis, a

23

defendant is not served until after the complaint is screened and cognizable claims are found. 28

24

U.S.C. § 1915(a), (d), (e)(2)(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(3). The Court screens complaints in the order in

25

which they are filed and strives to avoid delays whenever possible. While the Court uses its best

26

efforts to resolve this case and all other civil cases in a timely manner, Plaintiff is admonished that not

27

all of Plaintiff’s needs and expectations may be met as expeditiously as desired. This Court is faced

28
1

1
2
3
4

with literally hundreds of pro se filings, each requiring judicial time and limited judicial resources.
Accordingly, the Court will address this matter in due course.
Similarly, Plaintiff’s related request for a scheduling order is premature as the Court has not
screened the First Amended Complaint. Thus, Plaintiff’s request for a scheduling order is DENIED.

5

Finally, Plaintiff’s request to file documents electronically in the Court’s CM/ECF system is

6

also DENIED. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is pending and will be screened in due course.

7

Until such time as Plaintiff is found to state a cognizable claim pursuant to screening standards,

8

Plaintiff is denied electronic filing status.

9
10
11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Barbara

December 15, 2015

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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