Opinion
1:21-cv-01137-HBK
09-27-2021
GLENN S. SUNKETT, Plaintiff, v. T. REDMON, et al., Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR MISCELLANEOUS RELIEF
(DOC. NO. 35)
HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion filed September 22, 2021 requesting miscellaneous relief, namely that the court “move this case along.” (Doc. No. 35). Plaintiff Glenn S. Sunkett a prisoner initiated this action pro se in the Sacramento Division of this court by filing a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on June 3, 2019. On March 18, 2021, the then assigned magistrate judge screened Plaintiff's second amended complaint pursuant to 28 USC § 1915A. (Doc. No. 29). The magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations that Plaintiff be provided 30 days to file a third amended complaint raising only his due process claims against defendants T. Redmon and T. Boerum, and that all other claims and defendants be dismissed. (Id.). On June 24, 2021 the findings and recommendations were adopted in full by the district judge. (Doc. No. 31). On July 21, 2021 Plaintiff filed his third amended complaint. (Doc. No. 32). On July 28, 2021 this matter was transferred from the Eastern District of California's Sacramento division to this court and reassigned to the undersigned. (Doc. No. 33).
Title 28 USC § 1915A requires the court to screen Plaintiffs third amended complaint before service upon the defendants. 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. This action was recently transferred to the court and the court will screen the third amended complaint in due course considering its docket. This order effectively grants Plaintiffs motion to the extent the court acknowledges Plaintiffs third amended complaint is pending and requires screening. Plaintiff should note any future motions seeking to “move the case along” will have the opposite effect, as the court will be forced to divert its attention from screening to addressing such motions.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
Plaintiffs motion seeking miscellaneous relief (Doc. No. 35) is GRANTED to the extent the court will screen Plaintiffs third amended complaint in due course. 2