Kandi v. Management and Training Corporation et al

Filing 28

ORDER GRANTING 27 Motion for Case Status and Update and DENYING Motion for Screening signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 8/18/2017. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EMIEL A. KANDI, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 v. MANAGEMENT AND TRAINING CORPORATION, et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-00794-AWI-BAM (PC) ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR CASE STATUS AND UPDATE AND DENYING MOTION FOR SCREENING (ECF No. 27) Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Emiel A. Kandi (“Plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 18 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 Plaintiff initiated this action on 19 June 8, 2016. (ECF No. 1.) On August 16, 2017, Plaintiff filed the instant motion for case status 20 and update and motion for screening. (ECF No. 27.) Plaintiff’s request for status of case is 21 granted, as follows: On May 15, 2017, the Court issued an order granting Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an 22 23 oversized first amended complaint, screening and dismissing the first amended complaint, and 24 granting Plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint. (ECF No. 24.) Plaintiff filed a 25 second amended complaint on June 1, 2017. 26 /// 27 1 28 Plaintiff purports to bring his complaint in part under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. As Plaintiff has previously been informed, suits against federal officers for the violation of constitutional rights should be brought under Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). 1 1 With respect to Plaintiff’s motion for screening, Plaintiff is reminded that the Court is 2 required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or 3 officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The Court screens 4 complaints in the order in which they are filed and strives to avoid delays whenever possible. 5 However, there are hundreds of prisoner civil rights cases presently pending before the Court, and 6 delays are inevitable despite the Court’s best efforts. Due to the heavy caseload, Plaintiff’s 7 complaint is still awaiting screening. The Court is aware of the pendency of this case and will 8 screen Plaintiff’s complaint in due course. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for screening of his 9 complaint (ECF No. 27) is HEREBY DENIED. 10 11 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Barbara August 18, 2017 A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?