Rangel v. Tilton et al
Filing
118
ORDER Requiring Plainitff's Counsel to File Status Report, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 3/15/16. 10-Day Deadline. (Gonzalez, R)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
9
LEONARDO JOSEPH RANGEL,
10
Plaintiff,
11
12
v.
D. LATRAILLE, et al.,
13
Defendants.
14
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
1:10-cv-01790-BAM (PC)
ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF’S
COUNSEL TO FILE STATUS REPORT
TEN (10) DAY DEADLINE
Plaintiff Leonardo Joseph Rangel (“Plaintiff”) is a former state prisoner proceeding in
15
16
forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on
17
Plaintiff’s claims of excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment, and assault and
18
battery under state law, against Defendants D. LaTraille and J. Taber (erroneously sued as “J.
19
Tabor”). All parties have consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction. (ECF Nos. 9, 93). A jury
20
trial is currently confirmed for May 3, 2016.
At the March 15, 2016 telephonic trial confirmation hearing (“TTCH”) in this matter, the
21
22
Court attempted to confirm several matters with the parties, but Plaintiff was represented by
23
substitute counsel who was not fully informed of the case status. The Court reminds counsel that
24
at all hearings, and particularly hearings such as the TTCH where issues relevant to the
25
upcoming trial are to be discussed, counsel must come fully prepared to address the issues set for
26
hearing. Several outstanding issues must now be addressed in a status report by Plaintiff’s
27
counsel in advance of trial.
28
///
1
Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS:
2
1.
3
Within ten (10) days of the date of service of this order, Plaintiff’s counsel shall
file a status report addressing the following matters:
4
a.
The relief Plaintiff seeks in this matter, specifically whether Plaintiff still
5
seeks declaratory relief and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief. As discussed during the
6
TTCH, declaratory relief is unnecessary and redundant here. See United States v. Washington,
7
759 F.2d 1353, 1357 (9th Cir. 1985). Furthermore, since Plaintiff is no longer incarcerated, his
8
claim for any injunctive relief is moot. Nevertheless, the Court is willing to hear any argument
9
by Plaintiff regarding why such relief is warranted here. Plaintiff should specify the basis for
10
seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, if he intends to continue to seek such relief;
11
b.
How Plaintiff intends to use the discovery responses identified as
12
proposed exhibits in Section M. of his pretrial statement, and specifically whether Plaintiff
13
intends to offer any portion of those discovery responses for admission into evidence, or plans to
14
use them primarily for impeachment purposes. The Court does not admit discovery responses
15
into evidence in their entirety, and instead selected portions may be relevant and used at trial,
16
depending on the circumstances; and
17
c.
What are the “press releases” and “news articles” that Plaintiff identified
18
as proposed exhibits in Section M., including the date, author, publication in which they
19
appeared, and other identifying information, and how Plaintiff intends to use them.
20
21
d.
How does Plaintiff intend to use the declarations identified in the proposed
exhibits in Section M. Declarations are typically hearsay and not admissible at trial.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
March 15, 2016
/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?