(PC) Stine v. Bureau of Prisons

Opinion

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MIKEAL GLENN STINE, No. 2:18-cv-0684 TLN KJN P Plaintiff, Vv. ORDER BUREAU OF PRISONS, et al., Defendants. On August 9, 2019, plaintiff filed a “Motion for Status Conference.” (ECF No. 53.) Plaintiff reiterates his claims raised in his motion to reopen this action, and seeks a status conference “to progress the case.” (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff is advised that no status conference is warranted because all prisoner cases are addressed on the papers.' Moreover, as plaintiff was previously informed, any complaint concerning his current conditions of confinement in Terre Haute, Indiana, must be brought in an appropriate court in Indiana. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion (ECF No. 53) is denied. Dated: August 23, 2019 stin0684.dn2 —Frebl Alarm UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 76 Further, “[j]udges in the Eastern District of California carry the heaviest caseloads in the nation, and this Court is unable to devote inordinate time and resources to individual cases and matters.” Cortez v. City of Porterville, 5 F. Supp. 3d 1160, 1162 (E.D. Cal. 2014). Filing multiple motions or requests will not “progress” plaintiff's case.