Pinson v. Federal Bureau of Prisons et al

Filing 7

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Jerry H. Ritter denying 5 Motion for Limited Discovery to Effect Service Upon Defendant as premature. This Case Management Order shall govern proceedings in this case until further order of the Court. (cd)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO
JEREMY PINSON,
Plaintiff,
vs.

No. CV 21-00185 KWR/JHR

FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS,
et al.,
Defendants.
PRO SE PRISONER CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER
AND ORDER DENYING PENDING MOTION
THIS MATTER is before the Court sua sponte. The Court has received and docketed the
prisoner’s civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 filed pro se by Plaintiff Jeremy
Pinson. Plaintiff shall include the case number, CV 21-00185 KWR/JHR on all papers filed in this
proceeding.
Plaintiff must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Local Rules of this
Court, and any Order of the Court. Failure to comply with the Rules or Court Orders may result in
dismissal of this case or other sanctions. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b); see, also, Ogden v. San Juan
County, 32 F.3d 452, 455 (10th Cir.1994). Plaintiff is obligated to keep the Court advised of any
changes in Plaintiff’s mailing addresses. Failure to keep the Court informed of Plaintiff’s correct
address may also result in dismissal of the case or other sanctions. D.N.M. LR-Civ. 83.6.
Because Plaintiff is a prisoner proceeding pro se, the Court is obligated to conduct a
preliminary screening of the Complaint. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Whenever a prisoner brings a

1

civil action against government officials, the Court is obligated to screen the prisoner’s complaint
or petition. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Section 1915A states:
“The court shall review, before docketing, if feasible or, in any event, as
soon as practicable after docketing, a complaint in a civil action in
which a prisoner seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer
or employee of a governmental entity.”
...
On review, the court shall identify cognizable claims or dismiss the
complaint, or any portion of the complaint, if the complaint—
(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted; or
(2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from
such relief.”
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a) and (b).
Any request to the Court for relief must be in the form of a motion. Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(b).
The filing of excessive motions may cause substantial delay in completion of the Court’s
preliminary screening and resolution of the case. Plaintiff should avoid filing unnecessary
motions. Requests for service of process, discovery, and submissions of proof and evidence are
premature and unavailable prior to the Court’s completion of its screening obligation. See Jones v.
Bock, 549 U.S. 199, 213-214 (2007). If Plaintiff’s Complaint is not dismissed on initial screening,
the Court will enter further orders governing service of process, discovery, and scheduling.
Plaintiff should not send any letters to the Court other than transmittal letters or requests
for information or copies. All mail relating to this case must be directed to the Clerk of the Court.
Plaintiff is not to send any mail directly to the assigned District Judge or the assigned Magistrate
Judge. Plaintiff also should not make telephone calls to or ask to speak to the assigned District
Judge, the assigned Magistrate Judge, or the Judges’ staff, nor should Plaintiff ask family members
or friends to do so.

2

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Limited Discovery to Effect Service
Upon Defendant. (Doc. 5). Plaintiff’s Motion is premature until the Court completes its screening
obligation under § 1915A. Jones v. Bock, 549 U.S. at 213-214. Therefore, the Court will deny
the Motion for Limited Discovery (Doc. 5).
IT IS ORDERED:
(1) the Motion for Limited Discovery to Effect Service Upon Defendant filed by Plaintiff
Jeremy Pinson (Doc. 5) is DENIED as premature; and
(2) this Case Management Order shall govern proceedings in this case until further order
of the Court.

____________________________________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3