Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01701/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01701-1/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

ERIC C. R. K’NAPP,

Plaintiff,

v.

D. G. ADAMS, et.al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:06-cv-01701-LJO-GSA-PC 

ORDER RESPONDING TO PLAINTIFF’S

REQUEST FOR CASE TO PROCEED

(Doc. 12.) 

Eric C. R. K’napp (“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 filed this action on November

22, 2006. (Doc. 1.) On December 11, 2006, plaintiff filed an amended complaint. (Doc. 9.) On

March 28, 2008, plaintiff filed a request for this case to proceed. (Doc. 12.). 

 In his request, plaintiff points out that he filed the amended complaint months ago and it

has not been screened by the court or served upon the defendants. As plaintiff is aware, 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). The court screens

complaints in the order in which they are filed and strives to avoid delays whenever possible. 

Case 1:06-cv-01701-DAD-EPG Document 13 Filed 06/27/08 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

However, there are hundreds of prisoner civil rights cases presently pending before the Court,

and delays are inevitable despite the Court’s best efforts. With respect to service, the court will,

sua sponte, direct the United States Marshal to serve the complaint only after the court has

screened the Plaintiff’s complaint and determined that it contains cognizable claims for relief

against the named defendants.

 In the meantime, Plaintiff can be assured that the Court is mindful of delays and is

making every effort to keep abreast of it’s ever increasing caseload, and that Plaintiff will receive

all orders issued in his case provided that he keeps the Court apprised of his current address.

Plaintiff’s request is hereby RESOLVED by this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: June 26, 2008 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01701-DAD-EPG Document 13 Filed 06/27/08 Page 2 of 2