Michael Jacobsen v. Pool

Filing 10

ORDER Granting Request for Status of Case signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 07/13/2017. (Flores, E)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL JACOBSEN, 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, Case No. 1:16-cv-01760-BAM (PC) ORDER GRANTING REQUEST FOR STATUS OF CASE v. (ECF No. 9) KIRK POOL, Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Michael Jacobsen (“Plaintiff”), an inmate currently detained at the Fresno County 18 Jail, is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 19 § 1983. Currently before the Court is Plaintiff’s notice of change of address and request for status 20 of case. (ECF No. 9.) Plaintiff states that he is now incarcerated and does not know which of his 21 cases have deadlines. Plaintiff requests that the Court send him any deadlines in his pending 22 actions, as he is in custody and without any legal work. 23 The Court reminds Plaintiff that a screening order was issued in this action on June 13, 24 2017, and served by mail on Plaintiff. (ECF No. 8.) That order dismissed Plaintiff’s complaint 25 with leave to amend, for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief, and set forth the applicable 26 legal standards for curing deficiencies in the complaint. The order set a deadline of July 17, 2017 27 for the filing of Plaintiff’s first amended complaint or notice of voluntary dismissal, and warned 28 Plaintiff that failure to comply with the order would result in dismissal of this action, with 1 1 prejudice, for failure to state a claim and to obey a court order. (Id.) Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for status of case (ECF No. 9) is GRANTED, as set forth 2 3 above. 4 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Barbara July 13, 2017 A. McAuliffe _ 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?