Uribe v. McKesson et al

Filing 129

ORDER VACATING Settlement Conference Set for March 29, 2011; ORDER VACATING Jury Trial Set for April 18, 2011, and VACATING 122 Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum Directing the Production of Cesar Uribe, K-12001, Fernando Monges, J-45409, Gilbe rt Vaiza, C-15685, and Carlos Quiroz, V-13738 for Trial and SETTING Telephonic Conference for April 28, 2011; ORDER DIRECTING Clerk's Office to Serve a Courtesy Copy of this Order on CDCR Transportation and Out-to-Court Desk and Litigation Office at Correctional Training Facility and CSATF&SP signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 3/28/2011. Telephonic Conference set for 4/28/2011 at 10:30 AM before Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder. (Sant Agata, S)

(PC) Uribe v. McKesson et al

Doc. 129

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 (Doc. 122) 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Plaintiff Cesar Uribe ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis 24 in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter is currently set for jury trial on 25 April 18, 2011, at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 1, and a Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum 26 commanding the production of Plaintiff Cesar Uribe, Fernando Monges, Gilbert Vaiza, and Carlos 27 Quiroz for jury trial was filed on March 15, 2011. A settlement conference is set for March 29, 28 1
Dockets.Justia.com

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CESAR URIBE, Plaintiff, v. J. McKESSON, et al., Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:08-cv-01285-SMS PC O R D E R V A C A T IN G S E T T LE M E N T CONFERENCE SET FOR MARCH 29, 2011 ORDER VACATING JURY TRIAL SET FOR APRIL 18, 2011, AND VACATING WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AD TESTIFICANDUM DIRECTING THE PRODUCTION OF CESAR URIBE, K-12001; FERNANDO MONGES, J45409; GILBERT VAIZA, C-15685; AND CARLOS QUIROZ, V-13738 FOR TRIAL; AND SETTING TELEPHONIC CONFERENCE FOR APRIL 28, 2011

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK'S OFFICE TO SERVE A COURTESY COPY OF THIS ORDER ON CDCR TRANSPORTATION, AND OUT-TOCOURT DESK AND LITIGATION OFFICE AT CORRECTIONAL TRAINING FACILITY AND CSATF&SP TELEPHONIC CONFERENCE: April 28, 2011 at / 10:30 a.m. in Courtroom 7(SKO)

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

2011, at 2:00 p.m. On March 17, 2011, Defendants consented to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge and on March 22, 2011, the case was reassigned to the Honorable Sandra M. Snyder.1 Due to conflicts in the court calendar, the undersigned is unavailable for the date currently set for the settlement conference and trial. Therefore, the dates currently set for the settlement conference and trial will be vacated, as will the Order and Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum issued on March 15, 2011.2 A telephonic hearing to address trial setting and status of the action shall be set for April 28, 2011, at 10:30 a.m. in Courtroom 7 (SMS). Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that: 1. 2. 3. The settlement conference set for March 29, 2011, is VACATED; The trial date of April 18, 2011, is VACATED; The Order and Writ of Habeas Corpus ad Testificandum commanding the production of Plaintiff Cesar Uribe, Fernando Monges, Gilbert Vaiza, and Carlos Quiroz for jury trial on April 18, 2011, is VACATED; 4. This matter is set for telephonic conference to address trial setting and status before the undersigned on April 28, 2011, at 10:30 a.m. in Courtroom 7 (SMS); 5. Counsel for Defendants is to arrange for the participation of Plaintiff in the telephonic conference and to initiate the telephonic hearing at [phone]; and 6. The Clerk's Office shall serve a courtesy copy of this order on CDCR Transportation, and the Out-to-Court Desk and Litigation Offices at Correctional Training Facility and California Substance Abuse Treatment Facility and State Prison. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: icido3 March 28, 2011 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1

27
2

Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate Judge on September 22, 2008. (ECF No. 5.)

28

The Court notes that Defendants filed a motion to quash subpoenas on March 22, 2011. The motion will be addressed by subsequent order in due course.

2