Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05463/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05463-1/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

JOWELL FINLEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

QUINN, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 04 5463 AWI LJO P 

ORDER DENYING MOTION SEEKING

SCREENING OF THE COMPLAINT 

(Doc. 15.) 

Jowell Finley (“Plaintiff”) 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 2, 2005, Plaintiff filed a Motion seeking screening of complaint. In this

pleading, Plaintiff asks the Court to conduct a screening of the complaint. 

As indicated in the Informational Order provided to Plaintiff at the outset of the case, the

Court is required to screen the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1),(2) and will do so in

due course. While the Court understands that Plaintiff wishes to have his case proceed

expeditiously, Plaintiff must understand that the Court has hundreds of Section 1983 cases filed

by prisoners pending before it at any given time. The Court proceeds with screening of the case

by the date of filing. Thus, Plaintiff is assured that his case will get screened, however, it may

Case 1:04-cv-05463-AWI-LJO Document 17 Filed 05/09/05 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

not occur as quickly as Plaintiff might like. Moreover, the filing of a Motion informing the Court

of a duty it is already aware of is unnecessary and may only serve to divert the Court’s attention

from the screening of complaints to resolving miscellaneous motions like that filed here. Again,

Plaintiff can rest assured that his case will receive the attention required under the law in due

course. Accordingly, the Motion for Screening is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 7, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05463-AWI-LJO Document 17 Filed 05/09/05 Page 2 of 2