Sutherland v. Yates et al

Filing 114

ORDER DENYING Defendants' Request to Continue Trial Confirmation Hearing and ORDER GRANTING Request to Permit Alternate Attorney to Appear at Hearing signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 10/22/2014. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

WILLIAM SUTHERLAND,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
vs.
JAMES A. YATES, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

1:09-cv-02152-LJO-GSA-PC
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’
REQUEST TO CONTINUE TRIAL
CONFIRMATION HEARING
ORDER GRANTING REQUEST TO
PERMIT ALTERNATE ATTORNEY TO
APPEAR AT HEARING
(Doc. 99.)

17
18
19

William Sutherland ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

20

pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action now proceeds

21

on the First Amended Complaint filed by Plaintiff on December 6, 2010, against defendants

22

Correctional Officers (C/O) A. Fernando and M. Jericoff (“Defendants”) for use of excessive

23

force in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and related state claims.1 (Doc. 15.) This case is

24
25
26
27
28

1

On June 16, 2011, the Court dismissed defendant Lieutenant R. Lantz from this action based on
Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim against him under § 1983. (Doc. 20.) Plaintiff’s claims for conspiracy, due
process violations, and violations of the Penal Code were also dismissed from this action based on Plaintiff’s
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under § 1983. (Id.) On February 20, 2014, the Court
issued an order granting in part Defendants’ motion for summary judgment of August 17, 2012, granting summary
judgment in favor of Defendant Yates. (Doc. 94.) The Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
Plaintiff’s state law claim of negligent hiring. (Id. at 2 ¶4.)
1

1

scheduled for a telephonic trial confirmation hearing on November 21, 2014, and jury trial on

2

January 6, 2015.

3

On October 15, 2014, Defendants notified the court of a Notice of Conflict with the

4

Trial Confirmation Hearing. (Doc. 113.) Counsel for Defendants, Diana Esquivel, asserts that

5

she has a prior commitment to appear before the Ninth Circuit for oral argument in another case

6

on November 21, 2014 at 9:00 a.m., which conflicts with the trial confirmation hearing

7

scheduled in this case for November 21, 2014 at 8:15 a.m. Defendants request a continuance of

8

the trial confirmation hearing, or in the alternative, permission for another attorney from the

9

Office of the Attorney General for the State of California to appear at the hearing on behalf of

10

Counsel for Defendants.

11

Defendants’ request for a continuance of the trial confirmation hearing shall be denied.2

12

However, the court shall grant permission for an alternate attorney to appear on behalf of

13

Counsel for Defendants at the November 21, 2014 hearing.

14

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

15

1.

16
17

Defendants’ request for a continuance of the trial confirmation hearing
scheduled for November 21, 2014 at 8:15 a.m. is DENIED; and

2.

Defendants’ request for permission for another attorney from the Office of the

18

Attorney General for the State of California to appear at the November 21, 2014

19

trial confirmation hearing on behalf of Counsel for Defendants, Diana Esquivel,

20

is GRANTED.

21
22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

October 22, 2014

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28

2

The court shall not grant a continuance of the hearing. However, Defendants are not precluded from
requesting the hearing to be re-scheduled for November 19, 2014 at 8:15 a.m.
2