Sullivan v. Biter et.al.
Filing
105
ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 10/4/2017 re-setting an Initial Scheduling Conference for 12/11/2017 at 01:30 PM in Courtroom 10 (EPG) before Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean. (Lundstrom, T)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
15
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
16
17
MICHAEL J. SULLIVAN,
18
Plaintiff,
19
CHEN, et al.,
ORDER RE-SETTING AN INITIAL
SCHEDULING CONFERENCE
v.
20
1:12-cv-01662-AWI-EPG-PC
21
Date: December 11, 2017
Time: 1:30 p.m.
Defendants.
Honorable Erica P. Grosjean, Courtroom 10
22
23
24
25
26
Plaintiff, Michael J. Sullivan (“Plaintiff”), is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in
forma pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. This case now
proceeds with Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint filed on February 13, 2015, on his
27
28
1
1
Eighth Amendment claims for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs against
2
Defendants Chen, Patel, and Marchiano. (ECF No. 57.)
3
On May 1, 2017, the Court held an initial scheduling conference. (ECF No. 86).
4
Plaintiff failed to appear, failed to serve Defendants with his initial disclosures, failed to file a
5
scheduling conference statement, and failed to respond to any of Defendants’ discovery
6
7
8
requests. (ECF No. 87). The Court issued an order to show cause for failure to appear and
rescheduled the initial scheduling conference for May 15, 2017. (ECF No. 86, 87.) Plaintiff
failed to appear at the conference/hearing on May 15, 2017 and failed to file any document
9
responding to the order to cause.
10
11
12
13
14
Thereafter, the Court issued findings and recommendations, recommending that this
case be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to comply with court orders and failure to prosecute this
action. (ECF No. 88). On August 1, 2017, the Court discharged the order to show cause and
vacated the findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 99). The Court also directed Plaintiff to
15
serve his initial disclosures by September 1, 2017 and to file a scheduling conference statement
16
by September 13, 2017. Id. An initial scheduling conference was set for September 27, 2017, at
17
10:30 a.m. Id.
18
Plaintiff filed his initial disclosures and scheduling conference statement on September
19
5, 2017. On September 8, 2017, Defendants Chen and Patel filed a motion to dismiss for failure
20
to comply with the Court’s order requiring service of initial disclosures by September 1, 2017.
21
(ECF No. 101.)
22
On September 27, 2017, the initial scheduling conference was to be held. (ECF No. 99).
23
Defendants’ counsel, Catherine Woodbridge, appeared telephonically, and informed the Court
24
that Plaintiff would not appear due to a medical issue. Therefore, the Court shall reset the initial
25
26
scheduling conference.
Accordingly, based on the foregoing, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
27
28
2
1
1. An initial scheduling conference is set before Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean
2
on December 11, 2017 at 1:30 p.m. at the Robert E. Coyle Federal Courthouse,
3
2500 Tulare Street, Fresno, CA 93721 in Courtroom #10;
4
2. Plaintiff must appear telephonically. Defendants’ counsel may either appear in
5
person or telephonically. To appear telephonically, the parties are directed to use
6
7
the following dial-in number and passcode: 1-888-251-2909, passcode 1024453;
3. Plaintiff shall make arrangements with staff at his institution of confinement for his
8
attendance at the continued conference. Plaintiff’s institution of confinement shall
9
make Plaintiff available for the conference at the date and time indicated above.
10
Prior to the conference defense counsel shall confirm with Plaintiff’s institution of
11
confinement that arrangements have been made for Plaintiff’s attendance;
12
4. Failure to comply with this order may result in dismissal of this case for failure to
13
comply with a court order and failure to prosecute.
14
15
IT IS SO ORDERED.
16
17
Dated:
October 4, 2017
/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?