Mitchell v. Davey, et al.

Filing 75

ORDER DENYING Without Prejudice 72 Request for Ruling by District Judge on Order, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 4/20/18. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JOHN E. MITCHELL,

12
13
14
15

No. 1:16-cv-01148-DAD-EPG (PC)

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE
REQUEST FOR RULING BY DISTRICT
JUDGE ON ORDER

D. DAVEY, et al.,
Defendants.

(Doc. No. 72)

16
17

Plaintiff John E. Mitchell is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action

18

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 2, 2018, defendant Thompson filed a “request for ruling

19

by district judge on order (ECF Nos. 16, 26).” (Doc. No. 72.) Defendant Thompson requests

20

that, in light of Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500 (9th Cir. 2017), the undersigned review the

21

magistrate judge’s screening order de novo, and issue a ruling. (Id. at 2.)

22

Defendant’s request will be denied. Following the order of the Ninth Circuit holding

23

plaintiff’s appeal in abeyance, plaintiff’s in forma pauperis status was revoked by this court.

24

(Doc. Nos. 58, 71.) If plaintiff fails to pay the required filing fee, this entire action will be

25

dismissed. (See Doc. No. 71 at 6). Under those circumstances, there would be no need for this

26

court to review the magistrate judge’s earlier screening order. However, if plaintiff chooses to

27

resume his appeal and this court’s decision is reversed, or if plaintiff pays the required filing fee,

28

the court will address the Williams issue.
1

1

Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that the defendant Thompson’s request for ruling by district

2

judge on order (Doc. No. 72) is DENIED without prejudice.

3

IT IS SO ORDERED.

4

Dated:

April 20, 2018
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2