Harris v. Rios et al

Filing 147

ORDER DENYING Without Prejudice 143 Motion to Reopen Pretrial Statement and Submit Additional Exhibits signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 7/28/2015. (Jessen, A)

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,
v.
H.A. RIOS, et al.,
Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00781-MJS (PC)
ORDER DENYING WITHOUT
PREJUDICE MOTION TO REOPEN
PRETRIAL STATEMENT AND SUBMIT
ADDITIONAL EXHIBITS
(ECF No. 143)

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 June 26, 2015 motion to partially reopen his
pretrial statement and to submit additional exhibits. (ECF No. 145.) Plaintiff states that
the additional exhibits constitute approximately five pages of his personal property

1

record, registered mail receipts, and certified mail receipts. Defendants filed an

2

opposition. (ECF No. 144.) Plaintiff filed no reply.

3

The Court’s April 16, 2015 pretrial order advised Plaintiff that no exhibits, other

4

than those listed, would be admitted absent a stipulation or upon a showing of

5

“manifest injustice.” (ECF No. 124.) Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(e); Local Rule 281(b)(11).

6

Defendants’ opposition reflects that there is no stipulation regarding Plaintiff’s proposed

7

exhibits. Nor has Plaintiff shown that manifest injustice will result if the proposed

8

exhibits are excluded. Indeed, Plaintiff offers no explanation for his request.

9

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s request to reopen his pretrial statement to

10

add additional exhibits is insufficient. It therefore is HEREBY DENIED without

11

prejudice.

12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

July 28, 2015

/s/

15

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2