Stine v. Bureau of Prisons et al

Filing 54

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 8/23/2019 DENYING 53 Motion. (Henshaw, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

MIKEAL GLENN STINE,

11

Plaintiff,

12

v.

13

No. 2:18-cv-0684 TLN KJN P

ORDER

BUREAU OF PRISONS, et al.,

14

Defendants.

15
On August 9, 2019, plaintiff filed a “Motion for Status Conference.” (ECF No. 53.)

16
17

Plaintiff reiterates his claims raised in his motion to reopen this action, and seeks a status

18

conference “to progress the case.” (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff is advised that no status conference is

19

warranted because all prisoner cases are addressed on the papers.1 Moreover, as plaintiff was

20

previously informed, any complaint concerning his current conditions of confinement in Terre

21

Haute, Indiana, must be brought in an appropriate court in Indiana.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 53) is denied.

22
23

Dated: August 23, 2019

24
stin0684.dn2

25
26
27
28

Further, “[j]udges in the Eastern District of California carry the heaviest caseloads in the nation,
and this Court is unable to devote inordinate time and resources to individual cases and matters.”
Cortez v. City of Porterville, 5 F. Supp. 3d 1160, 1162 (E.D. Cal. 2014). Filing multiple motions
or requests will not “progress” plaintiff’s case.
1