Higgins v. Rodriguez, et al.

Filing 22

ORDER DENYING 21 Plaintiff's Motion for Special Consideration of His Case signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 1/11/2017. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JONATHAN ELLIOTT HIGGINS, 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, v. LOUIS RODRIGUEZ, et al., Defendants. 16 17 18 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:16-cv-00804-DAD-SAB (PC) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SPECIAL CONSIDERATION OF HIS CASE [ECF No. 21] Plaintiff Jonathan Elliott Higgins is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 Plaintiff filed the instant action on June 10, 2016, and a first amended complaint June 24, 2016. 20 A second amended complaint was lodged on October 31, 2016. On September 8, 2016, the action was 21 reassigned from Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck to the undersigned. 22 On January 9, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for special consideration of his case. 23 The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a 24 governmental entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). The 25 Court screens complaints in the order in which they are filed and strives to avoid delays whenever 26 possible. However, there are numerous prisoner civil rights cases presently pending before the Court, 27 and delays are inevitable despite the Court’s best efforts. Due to the heavy caseload, Plaintiff’s 28 complaint is still awaiting screening. The Court is aware of the pendency of this case and will screen 1 1 Plaintiff’s complaint in due course. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for special consideration of his 2 case is denied. 3 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: 6 January 11, 2017 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 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?