From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Craig v. Jones

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jun 12, 2023
2:22-cv-1874 DAD AC P (E.D. Cal. Jun. 12, 2023)

Opinion

2:22-cv-1874 DAD AC P

06-12-2023

MICHAEL A. CRAIG, Plaintiff, v. GENA JONES, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

ALLISON CLAIRE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks relief pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and has requested authority pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. The undersigned has recommended that plaintiff be declared a three-strikes litigant under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and that he be required to pay the filing fee in full prior to proceeding any further in this action. ECF No. 9. This recommendation is pending before the district judge.

Plaintiff has filed a motion for a jury trial. ECF No. 10. Because plaintiff's IFP application and status as a three strikes litigant remain unresolved, the complaint has not yet been screened. No defendant has been served. Accordingly, plaintiff's motion for a jury trial is premature.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for a jury trial (ECF No. 10) is DENIED as prematurely filed.


Summaries of

Craig v. Jones

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Jun 12, 2023
2:22-cv-1874 DAD AC P (E.D. Cal. Jun. 12, 2023)
Case details for

Craig v. Jones

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL A. CRAIG, Plaintiff, v. GENA JONES, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Jun 12, 2023

Citations

2:22-cv-1874 DAD AC P (E.D. Cal. Jun. 12, 2023)