Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00593/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-00593-4/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JASON GERAY,

Plaintiff,

v.

BRIAN CATES, K. NOUWEIS,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:21-cv-00593-AWI-HBK (PC)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF’S 

CONSTRUED MOTION 

(Doc. No. 16)

Plaintiff, Jason Geray, a pretrial detainee is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis on 

his initial Complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. Nos. 1, 10). Pending before the Court 

is Plaintiff’s construed motion requesting the Court to screen his Complaint. (Doc. No. 16). 

Plaintiff also requests that the Court provide him a copy of the instant motion. (Id. at 3). 

Request to Screen Complaint 

District courts possess inherent authority not governed “by rule or statute, but by control 

necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and 

expeditious disposition of cases.” Dietz v. Bouldin, 136 S. Ct. 1885, 1892 (2016) (citations 

omitted). And while this Court endeavors to handle all matters as expeditiously as possible, it has 

“one of the heaviest caseloads in the nation” and operates under a declared judicial emergency 

due to unfilled judicial vacancies, which is further exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic. See

Amended Standing Order in Light of Ongoing Judicial Emergency in the Eastern District of 

Case 1:21-cv-00593-JLT-HBK Document 17 Filed 12/12/22 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

California. This order effectively grants Plaintiff’s motion to the extent the Court acknowledges 

Plaintiff’s 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.

Request for Copy of Instant Motion

Neither Plaintiff’s pro se status nor his prisoner status entitle him to receive 

complimentary copies. Blair v. CDCR, 2018 WL 1959532, at *6 n. 2 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2018). 

The Court previously summarized the relevant Local Rules applicable to pro se cases in its First 

Informational Order in Prisoner/Civil Detainee Civil Rights Case filed April 9, 2021. (See Doc. 

No. 2). Plaintiff’s request for a copy of the instant motion is denied. However, consistent with 

statute, the Court will provide copies of the instant motion at $0.50 per page. See 28 U.S.C. § 

1914. Checks in the exact amount are payable to “Clerk, USDC.” Thus, to the extent Plaintiff 

wishes to obtain copies of the requested documents he should forward a check in the amount of 

$1.50 to the Clerk if he wishes to obtain these documents

Accordingly, it is ORDERED:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for screening order (Doc. No. 16) is GRANTED to the extent a 

screening order will be forthcoming. 

2. Plaintiff’s motion for a courtesy copy of the instant motion (Doc. No. 16) is DENIED. 

Dated: December 12, 2022 

HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:21-cv-00593-JLT-HBK Document 17 Filed 12/12/22 Page 2 of 2