(PC) Stine v. Bureau of Prisons

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 MIKEAL GLENN STINE, No. 2:18-cv-0684 TLN KJN P 11 Plaintiff, 12 Vv. ORDER 13 BUREAU OF PRISONS, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 On August 9, 2019, plaintiff filed a “Motion for Status Conference.” (ECF No. 53.) 17 | Plaintiff reiterates his claims raised in his motion to reopen this action, and seeks a status 18 || conference “to progress the case.” (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff is advised that no status conference is 19 || warranted because all prisoner cases are addressed on the papers.' Moreover, as plaintiff was 20 | previously informed, any complaint concerning his current conditions of confinement in Terre 21 | Haute, Indiana, must be brought in an appropriate court in Indiana. 22 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion (ECF No. 53) is denied. 23 | 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, 27 || 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 28 | or requests will not “progress” plaintiff's case.