Zuniga v. Jordan et al

Filing 85

ORDER DENYING Defendants' Pretrial Motions in Limine Without Prejudice 62 , signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 3/18/13: Motions are DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

LARRY ZUNIGA,

10

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-01208-AWI-BAM PC
Plaintiff,

11

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ PRETRIAL
MOTIONS IN LIMINE WITHOUT PREJUDICE

v.
(ECF No. 62)

12

CHRIS JORDAN, et al.,

13

Defendants.
/

14
15

Plaintiff Larry Zuniga (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

16

in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on Plaintiff’s

17

complaint, filed July 13, 2009, against Defendants Berke, Torres, Henderson, and Jordan for

18

excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment. On March 22, 2012, the Court issued an

19

amended pretrial order, which set the deadlines for motions in limine as June 4, 2012, and trial as

20

July 17, 2012. (ECF No. 60.)

21

In compliance with the Court’s pretrial order, Defendants filed their pretrial motions in

22

limine on May 14, 2012. (ECF No. 62.) The Court scheduled a telephonic hearing on the pretrial

23

motions in limine for June 25, 2012. (ECF No. 68.) At the June 25, 2012 telephonic hearing, the

24

Court vacated the July 17, 2012 trial date and scheduled a telephonic status conference. (ECF No.

25

70.)

26

The Court held telephonic status conferences on July 16, 2012, August 27, 2012, September

27

10, 2012 and November 19, 2012. (ECF Nos. 71, 72, 75, 79.) Plaintiff did not appear at the

28

November 19, 2012 telephonic status conference. At that time, defense counsel advised the Court
1

1

that Plaintiff had been paroled. Plaintiff had not provided the Court with his current address.

2

Defense counsel also advised the Court that Defendants would file a motion to dismiss. (ECF No.

3

79.) On November 21, 2012, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss this action. (ECF No. 80.) On

4

December 3, 2012, Plaintiff filed a notice of change of address. (ECF No. 81.) By separate order,

5

the Court has directed Defendants file a proof of service indicating that Plaintiff has been served with

6

the motion to dismiss at his current address.

7

As the trial date has been vacated and there is a pending motion to dismiss, any pretrial

8

motions in limine are moot. Accordingly, Defendants’ motions in limine are HEREBY DENIED

9

WITHOUT PREJUDICE. If the matter is reset for trial, the Court will issue amended deadlines for

10

pretrial motions in limine and related pretrial submissions. At that time, Defendants may renew their

11

pretrial motions in limine.

12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14

Dated:
0m8i78

March 18, 2013
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2