Harris v. Rios et al

Filing 146

ORDER DENYING 145 Motion to Advance Trial Date signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 7/26/2015. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 DONTE ROLANDO HARRIS, 10 11 12 13 Plaintiff, CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00781-MJS (PC) ORDER DENYING MOTION TO ADVANCE TRIAL DATE v. (ECF No. 145) H.A. RIOS, et al., Defendants. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action filed April 27, 2009 pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). The action proceeds on Plaintiff’s First Amendment claim against Defendants Gonzaga, Cobb, Zaragoza, and Valero for delay in delivery of incoming seized mail; his First Amendment claim against Defendant Cobb for interception and seizure of outgoing mail; and his Fifth Amendment due process claim against Defendants Estrada, Cobb, Valero, and Zaragoza for failing to provide notice his mail was seized. Trial is set for August 20, 2015. Before the Court is Plaintiff’s July 24, 2015 motion to advance the trial date. (ECF No. 145.) Prior to Plaintiff’s motion being filed, Defendants peremptorily objected to any change in the trial date due to difficulties inherent in coordinating the schedules of the five Defendants and their attorney. (ECF No. 142.) 1 The Court is sympathetic to Plaintiff’s desire to expeditiously bring this matter to 2 trial. However, the trial date is presently less than a month away, and the Court’s 3 calendar is such that it cannot accommodate an earlier trial date. 4 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion to advance the trial date is HEREBY DENIED. 5 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 26, 2015 /s/ 8 Michael J. Seng UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 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?