Jacobs v. Sullivan et al

Filing 141

ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 140 Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Order to Show Cause; ORDER Discharging 127 Order to Show Cause; ORDER Lifting Stay of Trial-Setting Proceedings re 118 ; Notice of Telephonic Status Hearing Before Magistrate Gary S. Austin, signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 01/23/15. Telephonic Status Conference set for 2/5/2015 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 10 (GSA) before Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GEORGE E. JACOBS IV,

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

Plaintiff,
vs.

1:05-cv-01625-GSA-PC
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO
RESPOND TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
(Doc. 140.)

W. J. SULLIVAN, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER DISCHARGING ORDER TO
SHOW CAUSE
(Doc. 127.)
ORDER LIFTING STAY OF TRIALSETTING PROCEEDINGS
(Doc. 118.)
NOTICE OF TELEPHONIC STATUS
HEARING BEFORE MAGISTRATE
JUDGE GARY S. AUSTIN
February 5, 2015 at 10:00 a.m.
in Courtroom 10 (GSA)

22

23

Plaintiff George E. Jacobs IV (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

24

forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case was filed

25

on December 22, 2005. (Doc. 1.) The case now proceeds on the Third Amended Complaint

26

filed by Plaintiff on May 5, 2010, against defendants Crotty, Nelson, Watson, Chan, McGregor,

27

Alexander, Carrasco, Blankenship, Jobb, Granillo, Johnson, and Salazar aka Adams, for

28

violation of Plaintiff’s rights under the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. 29.) All parties to this
1

1

action have consented to the jurisdiction of Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin under 28 U.S.C. §

2

636(c), and on June 5, 2013, this case was reassigned to Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin for all

3

further proceedings, including trial and final judgment.1 (Doc. 120.)

4

Defendant Crotty has filed bankruptcy, and on June 23, 2011, the Court stayed the case

5

against defendant Crotty pursuant to 11 U.S.C. ' 362(a), pending resolution of the bankruptcy

6

proceedings. (Doc. 58.) On April 24, 2013, the court stayed trial-setting proceedings in this

7

action pending resolution of defendant Crotty’s bankruptcy proceedings. (Doc. 118.)

8

On June 30, 2014, Defendants filed a status report, notifying the court that defendant

9

Crotty’s bankruptcy is expected to last another two years. (Doc. 126.) Defendants argued that

10

if the case is stayed for another two years, this case will not be tried until more than ten years

11

after the events giving rise to this lawsuit, resulting in fading memories, Defendants retiring

12

and moving out of state, and loss of evidence. Defendants also argued that it does not appear

13

efficient to wait until defendant Crotty’s bankruptcy proceeding ends, because Plaintiff did not

14

file a claim with the bankruptcy court, any claims for money damages Plaintiff had against

15

defendant Crotty are or will be discharged, and Plaintiff will not be able to pursue his suit

16

against defendant Crotty.

17

On July 7, 2014, the court issued an order requiring Plaintiff to show cause, within

18

thirty days, why this case should not proceed to trial, either continuing to stay the case against

19

defendant Crotty under 11 U.S.C. § 362(a), or dismissing defendant Crotty from this action.

20

(Doc. 127.) Plaintiff requested and was granted four extensions of time to respond to the

21

court’s order. (Docs. 129, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137.) On January 20, 2015, Plaintiff

22

filed another motion for extension of time. (Doc. 140.) Plaintiff argues that he is incapable of

23

making a reasoned response to the court’s order because he is not knowledgeable about

24

bankruptcy law and has been unable to gain access to the prison’s law library to conduct

25
26
27
28

1

On January 17, 2006, Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge under 28 U.S.C.
§636(c). (Doc. 3.) On June 4, 2013, Defendants consented to the jurisdiction of Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin
under 28 U.S.C. §636(c). (Doc. 120.) Defendants state that their “consent to Magistrate Judge Austin shall not be
construed as consent to any other magistrate judge to whom the case may be reassigned [and] [i]n the event the
case is reassigned to a magistrate judge other than Magistrate Judge Austin, Defendants reserve the right to
consent or decline to consent to any subsequently assigned magistrate judge.” (Id. at 2.)
2

1

research. It appears to the court that Plaintiff is unable to show cause why this case should not

2

proceed to trial. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time shall be denied, the court’s

3

order to show cause shall be discharged, and the stay of trial-setting proceedings shall be lifted.

4

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE

5

On February 5, 2015, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 10, a telephonic status hearing

6

shall be held in this case before Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin. Defense counsel shall

7

arrange for Plaintiff to participate in the hearing and initiate the telephonic hearing at (559)

8

499-5960.

9

Accordingly, based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

10

1.

Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time, filed on January 20, 2015, is DENIED;

11

2.

The court’s order to show cause, issued on July 7, 2014, is DISCHARGED;

12

3.

The stay of trial-setting proceedings in this case, imposed on April 24, 2013, is

13
14

LIFTED;
4.

U.S.C. ' 362(a), imposed on June 23, 2011, remains in place;

15
16

5.

17
18

The stay of proceedings in this case against defendant Crotty pursuant to 11

On February 5, 2015, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 10, a telephonic status
hearing shall be held in this case before Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin; and

6.

19

Defense counsel shall arrange for Plaintiff to participate in the status hearing and
initiate the telephonic hearing at [phone].

20
21
22

23

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 23, 2015

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
3