Shepard v. Tilton et al
ORDER Regarding Compliance with Pretrial Deadlines Regarding Proposed Trial Exhibits signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 03/20/2013. (Flores, E)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00023-BAM PC
ORDER REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH
PRETRIAL DEADLINES REGARDING
PROPOSED TRIAL EXHIBITS
(ECF No. 91)
R. PEREZ, et al.,
Plaintiff Lamont Shepard (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on
Plaintiff’s complaint against Defendants L.A. Martinez, R. Perez, P. Garcia, J. Soto, E. De la Cruz
and A Trevino for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment. A jury trial is set for May
Plaintiff has requested that the Court provide him with copies of his exhibits, which were
submitted with his motion for summary judgment, so that he may prepare for trial. Pursuant to the
Court’s direction, the Clerk’s Office mailed Plaintiff a copy of those exhibits on March 19, 2013.
(ECF No. 90.)
Plaintiff’s attention is now directed to the pretrial order in this action, which sets the
deadlines for pretrial submissions by the parties. (ECF No. 91.) Given the Court’s effort to ensure
that Plaintiff has a copy of his exhibits, Plaintiff must comply with the April 12, 2013 deadline to
exchange exhibits with Defendants and must comply with the April 29, 2013 deadline to submit
his pre-marked trial exhibits to Courtroom Deputy Harriet Herman. (ECF No. 91, pp. 15-18.)
Plaintiff is warned that failure to comply with the deadlines in the pretrial order may be grounds for
the imposition of sanctions, including exclusion of exhibits not pre-marked, possible dismissal of
this action or entry of default for non-compliance.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
March 20, 2013
/s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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?