Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01103/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01103-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dr. Akanno
Defendant
Tristan D. Allan
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

TRISTAN D. ALLAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

DR. AKANNO,

Defendant.

 /

CASE NO. 1:12-cv–01103-BAM PC

ORDER ADDRESSING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR TENTATIVE DATE OF

RULING

(ECF No. 9.) 

Plaintiff Tristan D. Allan is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this

civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action was filed on July 9, 2012. (ECF No.

1.) On July 12, 2012, an order issued denying Plaintiff’s motion for service of the summons and

complaint. (ECF No. 5.) In the order Plaintiff was informed 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). The Court screens

complaints in the order in which they are filed and strives to avoid

delays whenever possible. However, there are hundreds of prisoner

civil rights cases presently pending before the Court, and delays are

inevitable despite the Court’s best efforts. 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. Until the Court has screened the

complaint and found cognizable claims, any request for service by the

Marshal is premature and will be denied.

(Order Denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Service of Summons and Complaint 1, ECF No. 5.) Plaintiff

was also informed of this in the information order issued July 11, 2012. (First Informational Order

¶ 12, ECF No. 4.) 

1

Case 1:12-cv-01103-AWI-BAM Document 10 Filed 11/21/12 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

On November 19, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion for a tentative date on when his complaint

would be screened. Once Plaintiff’s complaint is screened an order will issue informing Plaintiff. 

The Court is unable to provide a tentative date by which the complaint should be screened. In the

first informational order Plaintiff was also advised that the Court does not provide litigants with the

status of the case. (ECF No. 4 at ¶ 12.) Any further such requests for status of the action shall be

stricken from the record.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: November 21, 2012 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe 

cm411 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:12-cv-01103-AWI-BAM Document 10 Filed 11/21/12 Page 2 of 2