(PC) Haynie v. Esquerra ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DONELL HAYNIE, Case No. 1:20-cv-01663 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO INITIATE SCREENING 13 v. (Doc. No. 6) 14 ANNAMARIE ESQUERRA, CRYSTAL ALCALA, R. MEIJA, 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff, Donell Haynie, is a current state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 18 pauperis on his First Amended Complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. Nos. 3, 4). 19 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion requesting the Court to screen his First Amended 20 Complaint and serve the defendants. (Doc. No. 6 at 2). 21 District courts possess inherent authority not governed “by rule or statute, but by control 22 necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and 23 expeditious disposition of cases.” Dietz v. Bouldin, 136 S. Ct. 1885, 1892 (2016) (citations 24 omitted). And while this Court endeavors to handle all matters as expeditiously as possible, it has 25 “one of the heaviest caseloads in the nation” and operates under a declared judicial emergency 26 due to unfilled judicial vacancies, which is further exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic. See 27 Amended Standing Order in Light of Ongoing Judicial Emergency in the Eastern District of 28 1 | California. This order effectively grants Plaintiff's motion to the extent the Court acknowledges 2 | Plaintiff's Fist Amended Complaint is pending and requires screening. Plaintiff should note any 3 | future motions seeking to “move the case along” will have the opposite effect, as the court will be 4 | forced to divert its attention from screening to addressing such motions. 5 Accordingly, it is ORDERED: 6 Plaintiffs motion for screening order (Doc. No. 6) is GRANTED to the extent a screening 7 | order will be forthcoming. 8 ” | Dated: _ April 6, 2022 Mile. □□□ foareA Hack 10 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28