Player v. Adams et al

Filing 71

ORDER GRANTING 67 Motion to Continue Trial Date; TELEPHONIC TRIAL CONFIRMATION: February 29, 2012 at 8:30 a.m. in Courtroom 4 (LJO); JURY TRIAL: April 10, 2012 at 8:30 a.m. in Courtroom 4 (LJO), signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis L. Beck on 10/25/2011. (Martin-Gill, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 LAVELLE TYRONE PLAYER, CASE NO. 1:07-CV-01312-LJO-DLB PC 7 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE 8 v. 9 (DOC. 67) B. JOHNSON, 10 Telephonic Trial Confirmation Hearing: February 29, 2012 at 8:30 a.m. in Courtroom 4 (LJO) Defendant. 11 12 Jury Trial: / April 10, 2012, at 8:30 a.m. in Courtroom 4 (LJO) 13 14 Plaintiff Lavelle Tyrone Player (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro 15 se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is 16 proceeding on Plaintiff’s second amended complaint against Defendant B. Johnson 17 (“Defendant”) on the claim of excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment. This 18 matter is currently set for jury trial beginning on February 13, 2012. Pending before the Court is 19 Defendant’s motion to continue the trial date, filed September 9, 2011. Doc. 67. 20 Defendant’s counsel submits a declaration attesting that she is unable to prepare for this 21 trial effectively by February 13, 2012. Michelle Angus Decl., Doc. 67. Defendant’s counsel is 22 counsel in the matter of McCoy v. Spidle, case No. CV-07-198,which is set for a two-week trial 23 to commence on January 31, 2012 in Sacramento. Id. ¶ 3. Defendant’s counsel declares that she 24 anticipates calling 54 witnesses in order to present the defense for two different prisons. Id. 25 Additionally, the Honorable Stephen M. McNamee from the District Court of Arizona will be 26 presiding over this action, and has made special arrangements to appear in Sacramento. Id. 27 28 Modification of the Court’s scheduling order requires a showing of good cause. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b)(4). The Court finds good cause has been presented, and issues the following. 1 1 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. 3 4 Lawrence J. O’Neill on February 29, 2012 at 8:30 a.m. in Courtroom 4; 2. 5 6 3. 4. 5. Defendant shall serve and file a pretrial statement as described in the Court’s September 6, 2011 Order on or before February 22, 2012; 6. 13 14 Plaintiff shall serve and file a pretrial statement as described in the Court’s September 6, 2011 Order on or before February 8, 2012; 11 12 Counsel for Defendant is required to arrange for the participation of Plaintiff in the telephonic hearing and to initiate the hearing at (559) 499-5680; 9 10 This matter is set for jury trial before the Honorable Lawrence J. O’Neill on April 10, 2012, at 8:30 a.m. in Courtroom 4; 7 8 This matter is set for telephonic trial confirmation hearing before the Honorable In addition to electronically filing their pretrial statement, Defendant shall e-mail the pretrial statement to: ljoorders@caed.uscourts.gov; 7. If Plaintiff intends to call incarcerated witnesses at time of trial, Plaintiff shall 15 serve and file a motion for attendance of incarcerated witnesses as described in the 16 Court’s September 6, 2011 Order on or before February 8, 2012; 17 8. 18 19 The opposition to the motion for the attendance of incarcerated witnesses, if any, shall be filed on or before February 22, 2012; 9. If Plaintiff wishes to obtain the attendance of unincarcerated witnesses who refuse 20 to testify voluntarily, Plaintiff must submit the money orders, as described in the 21 Court’s September 6, 2011 Order, to the Court on or before February 29, 2012; 22 and 23 24 25 10. Any other dates listed are disregarded and superseded by this order. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 77e0d6 October 25, 2011 /s/ Dennis L. Beck UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 26 27 28 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?