Jenkins v. Urbina

Full title: STEVEN C. JENKINS, Plaintiff, v. J. URBINA, Defendant.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Jul 23, 2013

1:10-cv-00960-GSA-PC (E.D. Cal. Jul. 23, 2013)

Opinion

1:10-cv-00960-GSA-PC

07-23-2013

STEVEN C. JENKINS, Plaintiff, v. J. URBINA, Defendant.

Gary S. Austin

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

EXPEDITE CASE

(Doc. 18.)

I. BACKGROUND

Steven C. Jenkins ("plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff filed the Complaint commencing this action on May 27, 2010. (Doc. 1.) Plaintiff has consented to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (Doc. 5.)

The court screened the Complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and entered an order on March 7, 2013, dismissing the Complaint for failure to state a claim, with leave to file an amended complaint. (Doc. 11.) On April 12, 2013, plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 15.)

On July 22, 2013, plaintiff filed a motion for an immediate ruling on his First Amended Complaint. (Doc. 18.)

II. PLAINTIFF'S MOTION

Plaintiff argues that his case should be expedited because he "has waited almost 90 days for the court's response." (Motion, Doc. 18 at 2:10-11.) Plaintiff asserts his belief that it is customary for the court to make a ruling within sixty days of the date of the Complaint or other pleading.

At this stage of the proceedings, plaintiff's First Amended Complaint awaits the court's requisite screening. The court ordinarily screens complaints in the order in which they are filed at the court, and strives to avoid delays whenever possible. However, there are hundreds of prisoner civil rights cases presently pending before the court, and delays are inevitable despite the court's best efforts. Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint was filed on April 13, 2013 and will be screened in due time. The court acknowledges plaintiff's request to move forward with his case; however, the court presently has many other cases before it which also require immediate attention.

Based on the above, plaintiff's motion to expedite his case shall be denied.

III. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for the court to expedite this case is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Gary S. Austin

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE