Ransom v. Herrera et al

Filing 246

ORDER on Plaintiff's 245 Motion for Clarification of Deadline to File Pretrial Statement and Motion for Attendance of Incarcerated Witnesses signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 06/20/2019. (Flores, E)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LEONARD RANSOM, JR.,
Plaintiff,

12
13
14
15

v.
DANNY HERRERA and RICKY
BRANNUM,

Case No. 1:11-cv-01709-LJO-EPG (PC)
ORDER ON PLAINITFF’S MOTION FOR
CLARIFICATION OF DEADLINE TO FILE
PRETRIAL STATEMENT AND MOTION FOR
ATTENDANCE OF INCARCERATED
WITNESSES
(ECF NO. 245)

Defendants.

16
17
18
19

Leonard Ransom, Jr. (“Plaintiff”), is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights
action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

20

On June 18, 2019, Plaintiff filed a motion for clarification of his deadline to file a pretrial

21

statement and a motion for attendance of incarcerated witnesses. (ECF No. 245). Plaintiff states

22

that, because of the pending motion for summary judgment, he does not know which witnesses he

23

needs to call, what evidence he needs to present, or if there will even be a trial. Thus, Plaintiff

24

asks that he be allowed to file his pretrial statement and motion for attendance of incarcerated

25

witnesses after the Court issues its ruling on the dispositive motion.1

26
27
28

1
Plaintiff states that “it appears [Defendants] have been informed of an impending ruling, prior to it’s [sic]
issuance.” (ECF No. 245, p. 5). This is not correct. Instead, it appears that Defendants filed a pretrial statement in
compliance with their deadline to do so.

1

Plaintiff’s motion will be denied. Plaintiff was required to file to file his pretrial statement

2

and his motion for attendance of incarcerated witnesses by May 6, 2019. While it is true Plaintiff

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

does not know what claims will be proceeding to trial, Plaintiff can still file both his pretrial
statement and his motion for the attendance of incarcerated witnesses. While some, if not all, of
Plaintiff’s claims may end up being dismissed, Plaintiff should have proceeded as if all of his
claims are proceeding to trial and filed his pretrial statement and his motion for attendance of
incarcerated witnesses by the May 6, 2019 deadline.
However, given the apparent confusion caused by the pending motion for summary
judgment, the Court will give Plaintiff until July 1, 2019, to file his pretrial statement,2 and until
July 8, 2019, to file his motion for attendance of incarcerated witnesses. As noted above, Plaintiff
should proceed as if all of his claims are proceeding to trial.3
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

12

1. Plaintiff’s request to be allowed to file his pretrial statement and motion for

13
attendance of incarcerated witnesses after the Court issues its ruling on the
14
dispositive motion is DENIED;
15
2. Plaintiff’s July 1, 2019 deadline to file his pretrial statement remains as previously
16

set; and

17

3. Plaintiff has until July 8, 2019, to file his motion for attendance of incarcerated

18

witnesses.

19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.

21
Dated:
22

June 20, 2019

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

23
24
25
Given Plaintiff’s apparent confusion, on June 17, 2019, the Court extended the deadline for Plaintiff to file
a pretrial statement to July 1, 2019. (ECF No. 244). The Court is confirming that extended deadline in this order, not
continuing it further.
3
The parties should not take this as any indication regarding the ruling on the motion for summary
judgment, which is still pending before the undersigned judge, who will then issue Findings and Recommendations
to the District Judge who will review the matter de novo with the benefit of any objections from the parties.
2

26
27
28

2