From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rodriguez v. Santoro

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 4, 2021
1:21-cv-01263-HBK (E.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2021)

Opinion

1:21-cv-01263-HBK

11-04-2021

SANTOS RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff, v. KELLY SANTORO, Warden at North Kern State Prison, Defendant.


ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR MISCELLANEOUS RELIEF (DOC. NO. 8)

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's letter pleading construed as a motion filed November 2, 2021. (Doc. No. 8). Plaintiff Santos Rodriguez, who identifies himself as a former state prisoner, initiated this action by filing a pro se “Civil Rights Complaint by a Prisoner” form under to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on August 19, 2021. (Doc. No. 1). Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis in this action. (Doc. No. 7). The construed motion reads in full: “To the Judge would it be possible to have my case heard as this technology continues to torment me day and night. Please.” (Doc. No. 8).

According to the address listed by Plaintiff, he is not longer incarcerated, although he complains about events that allegedly occurred while he was incarcerated at various institutions.

Title 28 USC § 1915(e)(2)(A), (B) requires the court to screen a complaint before service upon any defendant if the plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis. This Court has “one of the heaviest caseloads in the nation, ” and due to unfilled judicial vacancies, which is further exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic, operates under a declared judicial emergency. See Amended Standing Order in Light of Ongoing Judicial Emergency in the Eastern District of California. Plaintiffs complaint was filed fewer than three months ago. The Court will screen Plaintiffs Complaint as expeditiously as possible considering its docket. This order effectively grants Plaintiffs motion to the extent the court acknowledges Plaintiffs complaint is pending and requires screening. Plaintiff should note any future motions seeking to have this case expedited will have the opposite effect as the court will be forced to divert its attention from screening to addressing such motions. Any future pleadings requesting relief from the Court must comport with basic pleading requirements and properly be titled as a “motion” and shall “state with particularity the grounds for seeking the order.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 7(b).

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

Plaintiffs motion seeking miscellaneous relief (Doc. No. 8) is GRANTED to the extent the court will screen Plaintiffs complaint in due course.


Summaries of

Rodriguez v. Santoro

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 4, 2021
1:21-cv-01263-HBK (E.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2021)
Case details for

Rodriguez v. Santoro

Case Details

Full title:SANTOS RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff, v. KELLY SANTORO, Warden at North Kern State…

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Nov 4, 2021

Citations

1:21-cv-01263-HBK (E.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 2021)