Cranford v. Badagon

Filing 96

ORDER Denying 95 Defendant's Request for Extension of Time to File Pretrial Statement signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 07/24/2015. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10

ARCHIE CRANFORD,
Plaintiff,

11
12
13
14

v.
ANGELA BADAGON, et al.,
Defendants.

15
16

CONSOLIDATED ACTION

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:11-cv-00736-LJO-BAM
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO
FILE PRETRIAL STATEMENT
(ECF No. 95)
SEVEN-DAY DEADLINE

17
18

Plaintiff Archie Cranford (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma

19

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 5, 2015, the Court

20

granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and directed entry of judgment in favor of

21

Defendants Perryman and Harder. This action now proceeds on Plaintiff’s claim against

22

Defendant Balcagon (erroneously sued as Badagon) for excessive force in violation of the

23

Fourteenth Amendment. (ECF No. 77.)

24

On January 14, 2015, the Court issued a Second Scheduling Order. Pursuant to that

25

order, Plaintiff’s pretrial statement was due on or before July 9, 2015, and Defendant’s pretrial

26

statement was due on before July 23, 2015. (ECF No. 79.)

27
28

Plaintiff filed a pretrial statement that did not conform to the requirements of Local Rule
281. Therefore, on July 16, 2015, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file a pretrial statement that
1

1

complies with Local Rule 281(b) within fourteen days. (ECF No. 94.) Plaintiff’s pretrial

2

statement is due on or before August 3, 2015.

3
4

On July 23, 2015, Defendant filed the instant request to file her pretrial statement 14 days
after Plaintiff submits his statement. (ECF No. 95.)

5

The Court finds no basis to grant the requested extension of time. First, Defendant does

6

not require Plaintiff’s pretrial statement in order to file her own statement. Second, a telephonic

7

trial confirmation hearing is set for August 6, 2015. Defendant’s request would allow the filing

8

of pretrial statement after the trial confirmation hearing. The Court will not continue the

9

telephonic trial confirmation to await Defendant’s pretrial statement. Third, and finally,

10

Defendant has not presented good cause for the requested extension of time.

11

Accordingly, Defendant’s request for an extension of time to file her pretrial statement is

12

HEREBY DENIED. Defendant shall file her pretrial statement within seven (7) days of the date

13

of this order. Failure to comply with this Order will result in the dismissal of this case.

14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

July 24, 2015

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2