From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Wilson v. Tuolumne Cnty.

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Sep 3, 2021
1:21-cv-00196-SKO (PC) (E.D. Cal. Sep. 3, 2021)

Opinion

1:21-cv-00196-SKO (PC)

09-03-2021

CHRISTOPHER JOHN WILSON, Plaintiff, v. TUOLUMNE COUNTY, et al., Defendants.


ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR MISCELLANEOUS RELIEF AS UNNECESSARY (Doc. 15)

Sheila K. Oberto .UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis. On August 12, 2021, the Court issued an order denying as moot Plaintiff's motion for a “legal runner, ” “legal phone calls, ” a “writing tablet, ” envelopes, pencils, and an eraser. (Doc. 13.)

On September 1, 2021, Plaintiff filed a motion stating he agrees with the Court's ruling regarding the aforementioned issues. (Doc. 15.) He requests, however, that the Court not “deny [his] rights” regarding his claims of excessive force and improper medical care. (Id. at 1.) Plaintiff's motion is unnecessary. The Court only ruled on Plaintiff's request for the abovementioned items; it has not ruled on the merits of his case.

As explained in the Court's First Informational Order, Plaintiff's complaint is subject to screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915A(a). The Court will screen Plaintiff's complaint in due course.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff's motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Wilson v. Tuolumne Cnty.

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Sep 3, 2021
1:21-cv-00196-SKO (PC) (E.D. Cal. Sep. 3, 2021)
Case details for

Wilson v. Tuolumne Cnty.

Case Details

Full title:CHRISTOPHER JOHN WILSON, Plaintiff, v. TUOLUMNE COUNTY, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Sep 3, 2021

Citations

1:21-cv-00196-SKO (PC) (E.D. Cal. Sep. 3, 2021)