(PC) Pinkston v. Fierro, et al Doc.

150

Case 1:00-cv-06193-LJO-SMS Document 150 Filed 01/25/2006 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
11
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
12
13
MICHAEL ALEXANDRE PINKSTON, CV F 00 6193 REC SMS P
14
Plaintiff,
15 ORDER DISREGARDING MOTION FOR
v. COURT TO ISSUE COURT ORDER
16 REGARDING DOCUMENTS (Doc. 149.)
17 FIERRO, et. al.,
18 Defendants.
/
19
20 Michael Alexandre Pinkston (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in
21 forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
22 On September 29, 2005, the Court issued an Order granting Defendant’s Motion for
23 Summary Judgment and dismissing the case. Plaintiff has filed two Motions to Amend
24 Judgment which are pending before the Court. On January 18, 2006, Plaintiff filed a “Request
25 for Court to issue an Order regarding Documents 145, 146, 147, and 148.” Apparently Plaintiff
26 submitted this request to ensure that the Court is aware of his pending Motions to Amend.
27 Plaintiff can rest assured that the Court is aware of anything filed in the case. Although this case
28 has been disposed of per the Order granting the Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissing

Dockets.Justia.com
 Case 1:00-cv-06193-LJO-SMS Document 150 Filed 01/25/2006 Page 2 of 2

1 the case, as long as Plaintiff keeps his address current during the pendency of his Motions,
2 Plaintiff will be informed of any action taken on the pending Motions. Requests for information
3 from the Clerk regarding the status of his case will not be answer, nor will the court address such
4 requests in the form of a pleading filed in the case. Accordingly, the Motion for Court Order is
5 DISREGARDED. The Court will rule on the pending Motions in due course.
6
7 IT IS SO ORDERED.
8 Dated: January 24, 2006 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder
icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28