Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00599/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00599-21/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

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff, Felipe Garcia, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 5, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion requesting a 

status on both Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and on their motion to strike his surreply. 

(Doc. 82.) As stated in the First Informational Order issued on April 29, 2013, due to the large 

number of civil actions pending before the Court, individual inquiries regarding the status do not 

generally receive a response; to do so takes valuable, limited Court resources. (Doc. 3, p. 6.) As long 

as Plaintiff keeps his address with the Court current, he will receive all decisions which might affect 

the status of his case. (Id.) 

The Court realizes that Plaintiff has had some concerns regarding whether prison staff at his 

current facility are delivering him mail pertaining to this action. Thus, in this one instance, Plaintiff 

will be provided the status of the motions upon which he inquires. Defendants’ motion for summary 

judgment is in line for ruling with dispositive motions in other cases and will be ruled upon in due 

course. Defendants’ motion to strike Plaintiff’s surreply has recently been ruled on by separate order, 

FELIPE GARCIA,

 Plaintiff,

v.

BITTER, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No.: 1:13-cv-00599-LJO-SKO (PC) 

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION 

FOR STATUS 

(Doc. 82)

Case 1:13-cv-00599-LJO-SKO Document 86 Filed 05/09/16 Page 1 of 2
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

which Plaintiff should receive around the same time as this order. Further requests for status, without 

justification for inquiry, will not be well received as scarce resources must be diverted from 

substantive matters to respond to such inquiries.

Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion filed on May 5, 2016, (Doc. 82), for status of Defendants’ 

motion for summary judgment and to strike Plaintiff’s surreply, is GRANTED to the extent the 

information provided in this order satisfies his inquiry. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 9, 2016 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00599-LJO-SKO Document 86 Filed 05/09/16 Page 2 of 2