Crane v. Yates et al

Filing 72

ORDER Vacating Order To Show Cause And Denying Defendant's Motion To Dismiss (Documents 68 , 71 ), ORDER Granting Defendant A Four-Day Extension Of Time To File Pretrial Statement, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 4/ 16/2013. (Jury Trial set for 6/18/2013 at 08:30 AM in Courtroom 4 (LJO) before District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill, Trial Confirmation Hearing set for 5/9/2013 at 08:30 AM in Courtroom 4 (LJO) before District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill) (Fahrney, E)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6
JAMES CRANE,

1:10cv02373 LJO DLB PC

7
Plaintiff,
8
v.
9

ORDER VACATING ORDER
TO SHOW CAUSE AND DENYING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
(Documents 68, 71)

JAMES A. YATES, et al.,
10
Defendants.
11
12

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT A FOURDAY EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE
PRETRIAL STATEMENT
Telephonic Trial Confirmation
Hearing: May 9, 2013, at 8:30 a.m. in
Courtroom 4 (LJO)

13
14

Jury Trial: June 18, 2013, at 8:30 a.m. in
Courtroom 4 (LJO)

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

Plaintiff James Crane (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro se and in
forma pauperis in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding on
Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against Defendant Aguirre. The telephonic trial
confirmation hearing is set for May 9, 2013, and trial is currently set for June 18, 2013.
On April 16, 2013, the Court issued an Order to Show Cause why this action should not be
dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to file a timely pretrial statement. Also on April 16, 2013, Defendant
filed a Motion to Dismiss based on Plaintiff’s failure to follow the Court’s order and file a pretrial
statement.
However, on April 15, 2013, the Court received Plaintiff’s pretrial statement. Although the
statement was docketed on April 16, 2013, it was placed in the mail on April 9, 2013. Pursuant to
the prison mailbox rule, the statement is deemed filed on the date the prisoner delivered it to prison
authorities for mailing. Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 270 (1988); Douglas v. Noelle, 567 F.3d

28
1

1
2

1103, 1107 (9th Cir. 2009).
Therefore, Plaintiff’s pretrial statement is timely and the Order to Show Cause is

3

VACATED. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is DENIED. However, Defendant will receive a four-

4

day extension of time within which to file a pretrial statement. Defendant’s pretrial statement is due

5

on or before April 29, 2013.

6

The telephonic trial confirmation hearing remains on calendar for May 9, 2013, at 8:30 a.m.

7
8
9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

April 16, 2013

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
11
12

DEAC_Signature-END:

b9ed48bb

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2