Forte v. County of Merced et al

Filing 163

ORDER on Plaintiff's Motion for Clarification of Prior Orders of the Court, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 7/22/13. This Order Addresses Documents 157 , 159 , & 161 . (Verduzco, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

EUGENE E. FORTE,

12
13
14

Plaintiff,
v.
COUNTY OF MERCED, et al.,

15

1:11-cv-0318 AWI BAM
1:11-cv-0718 AWI BAM
ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
CLARIFICATION OF PRIOR ORDERS OF
THE COURT

Defendants.

16
17
18

This Order Addresses:
EUGENE E. FORTE,
Plaintiff,

19
20
21
22

Case # 11-cv-0318 Doc. #’s 157, 159 & 161
Case # 11-cv-0718

Doc. #’s 92 & 94

v.
TOMMY JONES, et al.,
Defendants.

23
24
25

Plaintiff has submitted motions in both cases seeking “clarification” of the documents

26

noted above. For the most part, the requested “clarifications” do not involve orders of the court

27

so much as the court’s reasoning behind its orders. The court has reviewed the specific questions

28

posed by Plaintiff and finds that, with only one or two exceptions, further elaboration on the
1

1

court’s prior orders is not warranted.

2

The court does wish to clarify that, while the issuance of subpoenas will not be allowed

3

for the purpose of testimony, any declarations or letters from persons who will voluntarily attest

4

to Plaintiff’s willingness to follow the orders of the court with respect to exclusion of evidence

5

that is not relevant and with respect to rules of decorum at trial as imposed by the court will be

6

gladly accepted. In addition, to the extent is has not been made explicit before, the court’s

7

concern with Plaintiff’s competence is in regard to his conduct at trial. In particular, the court is

8

concerned with Plaintiff’s ability to confine himself to what the court determines is the relevant

9

subject matter, and with his ability to conduct himself without the derisive and invective remarks

10

that are common in his written submissions to the court. The court is not particularly concerned

11

with Plaintiff’s conduct with regard to written submissions.

12
Except for the foregoing clarification of the court’s prior orders, Plaintiff’s Motions for

13
14

clarification or correction of orders as set forth in Document Numbers 157, 159 and 161 of Case

15

Number 11-cv-0318; and Document Numbers 92 and 94 in Case Number 11-cv-0718 are hereby

16

DENIED. The Clerk of the Court shall file this order in both the aforementioned cases.

17
18
19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 22, 2013
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE
DEAC_Signature-END:

21
22

0m8i788

23
24
25
26
27
28
2