Singleton v. Hedgepath et al

Filing 180

ORDER DENYING Plaintiff's Request for Telephonic Status Conference 135 , signed by Magistrate Judge Gary S. Austin on 5/6/11. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KELVIN X. SINGLETON,

12
13
14
15

1:08-cv-00095-AWI-GSA-PC

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST FOR TELEPHONIC STATUS
CONFERENCE
(Doc. 135.)

v.
HEDGEPATH, et al.,
Defendants.
/

16
17

Kelvin X. Singleton (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

18

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 3, 2011, Plaintiff

19

filed a request for a telephonic status conference to be scheduled in this action, pursuant to Local

20

Rule 240. (Doc. 135.) Defendants have not filed an opposition.

21

Plaintiff requests a telephonic conference to discuss with the Court and Defendants the

22

“amendment of pleadings; the formulation and simplification of the issues, including elimination

23

of frivolous claims and defenses; the disposition of pending motions; and whether to hold further

24

discovery conferences.” Id. Plaintiff also contends that many of the motions pending before the

25

Court can be resolved during a telephonic conference. Id.

26

Plaintiff is directed to review the First Informational Order issued by the Court in this

27

action on January 8, 2008. (Doc. 5). Because Plaintiff is incarcerated and proceeds pro se, all

28

pre-trial motions will be submitted to the Court without a hearing. Id. at ¶9; L.R. 230(l). In
1

1

addition, this action is exempt from Local Rule 240's requirement of a mandatory scheduling

2

conference. L.R. 240(c). Plaintiff has not presented sufficient reasons for the Court to order a

3

telephonic conference at this juncture. It appears, at this stage of the proceedings, that the issues

4

raised by Plaintiff are best resolved sua sponte by the Court, by motion submitted to the Court, or

5

by the parties without court intervention. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion shall be denied.

6
7

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for a
telephonic status conference is DENIED.

8
9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

10

Dated:
6i0kij

May 6, 2011

/s/ Gary S. Austin
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2