Forte v. Jones
Filing
51
ORDER VACATING Trial Date and Pretrial Date Pending Review and Evaluation of Issues Raised in Pretrial Statements, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 3/26/2013. (Status Conference set for 5/28/2013 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 2 (AWI) before District Judge Anthony W. Ishii.) (Marrujo, C)
1
2
3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
4
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
EUGENE FORTE
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
TOMMY JONES, an individual, and
)
DOES 1-100, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
____________________________________ )
1:11-cv-0718 AWI BAM
ORDER VACATING TRIAL
DATE AND PRETRIAL DATE
PENDING REVIEW AND
EVALUATION OF ISSUES
RAISED IN PRETRIAL
STATEMENTS
12
13
14
15
The court is in receipt of the pretrial statements by the parties filed in anticipation of
16
the pretrial conference currently scheduled to be held on Wednesday, March 27, 2013. An
17
issue has been raised in both statements concerning what the court understands is a currently
18
pending determination of Plaintiff’s mental competency to stand trial in the criminal case or
19
cases now pending before the Merced County Superior Court. In their pretrial statement
20
under Disputed Evidentiary Issues, Defendants state that Plaintiff’s competence to present
21
evidence or stand trial is at issue. Doc. # 44 at 3:12. Plaintiff’s pretrial statement anticipates
22
Defendants’ disputed evidentiary issue and Plaintiff states his opposition to any reference to
23
the mental competency determination on the ground that such determination is currently
24
under appeal and that, in any event, it has no relevance to the incident that gives rise to
25
Plaintiff’s action.
26
The court has not had the opportunity to consider the issue of mental competency in
27
any depth as it may impact this case, but it is evident upon even cursory examination that this
28
is an issue that is poorly suited to determination on the eve of trial by way of motions in
limine. Resolution of the issue of mental competency must be accomplished well before
1
trial because the failure to do so could legitimately be claimed by either side to have
2
prejudiced their right to a fair trial on the merits. Plaintiff’s pretrial statement suggests, but
3
does not directly state, that the issue of Plaintiff’s mental competence has been determined by
4
the trial court and is currently on appeal. See Doc. # 48 at 10:8-9. The court, however, has
5
not been informed that the criminal cases currently pending in the state court have been
6
resolved on that or any other basis, so the court assumes the issue is still pending.
7
As the court has informed the parties by email, this order will vacate the currently
8
pending dates for pretrial conference and the trial. The court will set a further status
9
conference for Tuesday, May 28, 2013, at 1:30 p.m. in courtroom 2. Should the issue of
10
Plaintiff’s competency be resolved at any time prior to May 28, 2013, either party may notify
11
the court to advance the status conference. In any case, both parties will be ordered to file
12
separate status updates not later than Friday, May 17, 2013, at 4:00 p.m.
13
14
15
THEREFORE, in accord with the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1.
16
The pretrial conference currently set for Wednesday, March 27, 2013, is hereby
VACATED and no party shall appear at that time.
17
2.
The dated currently set for Trial and all associated dates are hereby VACATED.
18
3.
Both parties shall file and serve status reports regarding the issue of determination of
19
Plaintiff’s mental competency not later than 4:00 p.m. Friday, May 17, 2013. The
20
parties shall not file opposition to the other party’s status report.
21
4.
Status conference is hereby set for Tuesday, May 28, 2013, at 1:30 p.m.
22
Alternatively, the parties may agree to appear telephonically any day following May
23
28, 2013, by mutual agreement and upon notice to the court.
24
IT IS SO ORDERED.
25
26
Dated:
0m8i78
March 26, 2013
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE
27
28
2
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?