Rhoades v. Cambra, et al
Filing
121
ORDER Setting Telephonic Hearing for September 11, 2009 signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 9/9/2009. ( Telephonic Hearing set for 9/11/2009 at 01:00 PM ) (Figueroa, O)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 In this action Plaintiff Gregory L. Rhoades contends that Defendant Atkison violated his First Amendment rights and the Due Process Clause when he destroyed Plaintiff's Religious Property. Trial in this action is set for September 15, 2009. On September 8, 2009, the court signed a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum for Plaintiff's presence at trial. On September 8, 2009, the writ was served on the litigation coordinator at Calipatria State Prison. The court faxed copies of the writ to the litigation coordinator, the out-to-court desk at Calipatria State Prison, and CDCR Transportation. On September 9, 2009, the litigation coordinator at Calipatria State Prison contacted the court and informed the court CDCR would be unable to bring Plaintiff to this court on September 15, 2009. The court finds that it is necessary to conduct a hearing on this issue and a new trial date. ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) ALAMEIDA et al., ) ) Defendants ) ____________________________________) GREGORY L. RHOADES, 1: 02 - CV - 5476 AWI DLB P ORDER SETTING TELEPHONIC HEARING FOR SEPTEMBER 11, 2009 AT 1:00 P.M. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Accordingly, the court ORDERS that: 1. 2. A telephonic hearing is set for September 11, 2009 at 1:00 p.m.; and Counsel for Defendant is directed to arrange for telephone contact with Plaintiff,
and shall initiate the call to (559) 499-5669.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 0m8i78 September 9, 2009 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?