Garces v. Pickett et al

Filing 14

ORDER denying 10 Motion to Stay signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 4/13/17. (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LUIS MANUEL GARCES,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

v.

No. 2:17-cv-00319 JAM AC P

ORDER

J. PICKETT, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

18

42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has filed a motion to stay. ECF No. 10. He asks that the court stay

19

the proceedings until he can make a formal request to the mailroom and Officer Stanton to

20

produce the documents he alleges were never sent to this court. Id. at 2. Plaintiff claims that he

21

gave Officer Stanton an envelope containing his complaint, and that Stanton offered to seal the

22

envelope for plaintiff, but never returned to plaintiff’s cell to confirm that the complaint had been

23

sent to this court. Id. In his motion for stay, plaintiff alleges that he filed his original complaint

24

sometime in February 2017, and again on March 12, 2017. Id. at 1-2. It appears he believes that

25

the court has not received these filings because the order denying his request for counsel stated

26

that his complaint had not yet been screened. Id. at 4.

27
28

When the court stated that it had not screened the complaint, it meant that it had not
looked at the complaint yet. The court has received both the initial complaint plaintiff filed in
1

1

February (ECF No. 1), as well as a number of exhibits in support of that complaint (ECF. No 8).

2

The certificate of service on the exhibits identifies them as a “Civil Complaint § 1983” and shows

3

that they were turned over for mailing on March 12, 2017 (id. at 100). The documents plaintiff

4

believes were not delivered to the court were, in fact, filed and received by the court and the

5

complaint will be addressed in due course.

6
7
8
9

Moreover, plaintiff has since filed a request to proceed with the complaint. ECF No. 13.
As such, the motion for stay is moot.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to stay is DENIED.
DATED: April 13, 2017

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