Opinion
CASE NO. 1:10-cv-1779-MJS (PC)
09-29-2011
HON LAU, Plaintiff, v. K. HARRINGTON, et al. Defendants.
ORDER DENYING MISCELLANEOUS MOTIONS
(ECF Nos. 11 and 12)
Plaintiff Hon Lau ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff has consented to jurisdiction by a Magistrate Judge. (ECF No. 5.)
Plaintiff initiated this action on September 28, 2010. (ECF No. 1.) The Court has yet to screen Plaintiff's Complaint. On August 23, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Motion for a Court Decision and an Application for a Telephone Call from the Court. (ECF No. 11.) On August 29, 2011, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Reconsideration. (ECF No. 12.) These Motions are now before the Court. I. MOTION FOR A DECISION AND FOR A TELEPHONE CALL
In his Motion for a Decision and for a Telephone Call, Plaintiff simply states he "is moving for a motion for a court judgment." (ECF No. 11.)
The Court is required to screen complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or employee of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(A)(a). The Court must dismiss a complaint or portion thereof if the prisoner has raised claims that are legally "frivolous or malicious," that fail to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or that seek monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2). The Court screens complaints in the order in which they are filed. However, there are hundreds of prisoner civil rights cases presently pending before the Court. Delays are inevitable despite the Court's best efforts. The Court cannot issue any decision until it has screened Plaintiff's Complaint and, if it finds that Plaintiff states a cognizable claim, after it has allowed the case to proceed through the normal course of litigation.
Moreover, the Court will order a telephone conference only if the Court determines it is necessary after the case has been screened.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion is DENIED. II. MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Although Plaintiff filed a Motion entitled "Notice of Change of Address, Motion for Re-Consideration," Plaintiff did not provide any information in his filing regarding Motion for Reconsideration. (ECF No. 12.) Plaintiff has not set out what order he would like reconsidered and why the Court should reconsider it.
Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Michael J. Seng
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE