Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00893/USCOURTS-caed-1_07-cv-00893-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DARYL DWIGHT GRAY,

Plaintiff,

v.

N. GRANNIS et al,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:07-cv-00893 AWI DLB P

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTIONS

FOR MISCELLANEOUS RELIEF

(Docs. 11, 14, 15, 21, 26, 27, 28, 31, 32, 33, 36,

41) 

ORDER RE PLAINTIFF’S REQUESTS FOR

STATUS UPDATE

(Docs. 45, 47, and 49)

Plaintiff is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action was transferred to this Court on June 22, 2007.

Since July 2007, plaintiff has filed numerous motions requesting that his civil action be processed

expeditiously. Plaintiff has also filed motions requesting a status update concerning his action

(Docs. 45, 47, 49).

By order filed August 3, 2007, plaintiff was advised that the court is required to screen

complaints brought by prisoners seeking relief against a governmental entity or officer or employee

of a governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). Further, plaintiff was advised that the court will

direct the United States Marshal to serve the complaint only after it has determined that the

complaint contains cognizable claims for relief against the named defendants; that the court has not

yet screened plaintiff’s complaint, but will do so in due course. Due to the large number of prisoner

Case 1:07-cv-00893-AWI-DLB Document 50 Filed 03/07/08 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

civil rights cases pending before the Court, plaintiff’s complaint has not yet been screened. 

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motions requesting: service by the United States Marshall office on

the named defendants (Doc. 41), that defendants respond to plaintiff’s request for a conferences

(Docs. 11, 14, 21), the names of the defendants’ counsel (Docs. 26 and 27), a response from

defendants’ counsel (Doc. 32), discovery (Doc. 33), a speedy trial (Docs. 15, 28, 31, 36, 41), and

a trial date (Doc.36, 41) are premature and therefore denied. 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motions (Docs. 11, 14, 15, 21, 26,

27, 28, 31, 32, 33, 36, and 41) are DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: March 7, 2008 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3c0h UNI j8 TED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00893-AWI-DLB Document 50 Filed 03/07/08 Page 2 of 2