(PC) Haynie v. Esquerra

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA DONELL HAYNIE, Case No. 1:20-cv-01663 12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO INITIATE SCREENING 13 v. (Doc. No. 6) ANNAMARIE ESQUERRA, CRYSTAL ALCALA, R. MEIJA, Defendants.

Plaintiff, Donell Haynie, is a current state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis on his First Amended Complaint filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. Nos. 3, 4).

Pending before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion requesting the Court to screen his First Amended Complaint and serve the defendants. (Doc. No. 6 at 2).

District courts possess inherent authority not governed “by rule or statute, but by control necessarily vested in courts to manage their own affairs so as to achieve the orderly and expeditious disposition of cases.” Dietz v. Bouldin, 136 S. Ct. 1885, 1892 (2016) (citations omitted). And while this Court endeavors to handle all matters as expeditiously as possible, it has “one of the heaviest caseloads in the nation” and operates under a declared judicial emergency due to unfilled judicial vacancies, which is further exacerbated by the Covid-19 pandemic. See Amended Standing Order in Light of Ongoing Judicial Emergency in the Eastern District of | California. This order effectively grants Plaintiff's motion to the extent the Court acknowledges | Plaintiff's Fist Amended Complaint is pending and requires screening. Plaintiff should note any | future motions seeking to “move the case along” will have the opposite effect, as the court will be | 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 | order will be forthcoming. ” | Dated: _ April 6, 2022 Mile. □□□ foareA Hack 10 HELENA M. BARCH-KUCHTA 4 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE