Hill v. Clark et al

Filing 63

SCHEDULING ORDER Following Trial Confirmation Hearing Held on November 20, 2015 signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 11/23/2015. Motions in Limine Hearing set for 2/3/2016 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 10 (EPG) before Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean.Jury Trial set for 4/12/2016 at 08:30 AM in Courtroom 10 (EPG) before Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean.(Flores, E)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 JOHNATHAN HILL, 9 Plaintiff, 10 vs. 1:13-cv-00386-EPG-PC SCHEDULING ORDER FOLLOWING TRIAL CONFIRMATION HEARING HELD ON NOVEMBER 20, 2015 11 C/O J. CLARK and NEW DATES: 12 C/O A. RIVAS, Motions in Limine Deadline: January 13, 2016 13 Defendants. 14 Opposition to Motions in Limine Deadline: January 27, 2016 Motions in Limine Hearing: February 3, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. Courtroom 10 Other Pretrial Submissions: 15 February 17, 2016 16 17 Jury Trial: April 12, 2016, at 8:30 a.m. in Courtroom 10 (EPG) 18 19 20 Plaintiff, Jonathan Hill (“Plaintiff”), is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 21 pauperis with this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. The parties have consented 22 to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), for all further proceedings 23 including trial and entry of judgment.1 24 25 26 27 28 1 On July 31, 2015, defendants Clark and Rivas consented to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). (ECF No. 42.) On August 5, 2015, Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of a Magistrate Judge under 29 U.S.C. § 636(c). (ECF No. 43.) On August 10, 2015, due to consent by the parties, this case was reassigned to Magistrate Judge Gary L. Austin for all further proceedings. (ECF No. 45.) On October 13, 2015, due to the retirement of Magistrate Judge Austin, this case was reassigned from Magistrate Judge Austin to Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean. (ECF No. 51.) 1 1 The case proceeds on the original Complaint filed by Plaintiff on March 18, 2013, 2 against defendant Correctional Officer (C/O) J. Clark for use of excessive force, and defendant 3 C/O A. Rivas for failure to protect Plaintiff, in violation of the Eighth Amendment.2 (ECF No. 4 1.) On June 17, 2015, the Court issued the Second Scheduling Order, setting the case for trial 5 to commence on January 5, 2016. (ECF No. 37.) The parties have filed pretrial statements, 6 and on November 3, 2015, the Court issued a Pretrial Order. (ECF No. 57.) 7 On November 19, 2015 at 9:30 a.m., a trial confirmation hearing was held before 8 Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean in Courtroom 10. Plaintiff appeared telephonically on his 9 own behalf, and Deputy Attorney General Joanna B. Hood appeared telephonically on behalf of 10 defendants. Aida S. Macedo, Esq., personally appeared as prospective counsel for Plaintiff. 11 The hearing was concluded early due to a fire alarm at the Attorney General’s Office, and was 12 resumed on November 20, 2015 at 11:30 a.m. 13 Following discussion, the trial was continued to April 12, 2016, at 8:30 a.m. in 14 Courtroom 10 before Judge Grosjean. The deadline for submission of motions in limine and 15 defendants’ motion for bifurcation of punitive damages was scheduled for January 13, 2015. 16 Responses to motions in limine and defendants’ bifurcation motion are now due on January 27, 17 2015. A hearing on motions in limine and the bifurcation issue was scheduled for February 3, 18 2016 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 10 before Judge Grosjean. 19 Other pretrial submissions are now due on February 17, 2016, including trial briefs, if 20 any, sample verdict forms, jury instructions, voir dire questions, a shared neutral statement of 21 the case, and submission and exchange of the parties’ trial exhibits. The parties should submit 22 a stipulation by February 17, 2016, if any, that defendants Clark and Rivas were acting under 23 color of state law at the time of the events at issue in this case, as well as any stipulations about 24 authenticity of documents.3 25 26 27 28 2 On January 24, 2014, the Court issued an order dismissing all other claims and defendants from this action for failure to state a claim. (ECF No. 17.) The Court’s order dismissed defendants C/O L. Aragon, C/O A. Tirado, C/O J. Magana, Sergeant W. Rasley, C/O Flores, and the Doe Defendants from this action based on Plaintiff's failure to state any claims upon which relief may be granted against them under § 1983. (Id.) 3 If the parties so stipulate, the jury will not need to decide this issue at trial. 2 1 Aida S. Macedo, Esq., of Miles, Sears & Eanni, agreed to her appointment as pro bono 2 counsel for Plaintiff.4 She will be supervised by Douglas L. Gordon, Esq., who will also be 3 appointed. Plaintiff shall amend his pretrial statement, as needed, before February 17, 2016.5 4 Evidence to be submitted for trial shall be discussed at the February 3, 2016 motions in limine 5 hearing. 6 The parties are also directed to meet and confer about whether a settlement conference 7 would be beneficial, and shall contact the Courtroom Deputy to schedule one, if the parties 8 choose. 9 10 Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. 11 12 8:30 a.m. in Courtroom 10 before Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean; 2. 13 14 3. Responses to motions in limine and defendants’ bifurcation motion are now due on or before January 27, 2016; 4. 17 18 The deadline for submission of motions in limine and defendants’ motion for bifurcation of punitive damages is now January 13, 2016; 15 16 Jury trial in this matter is continued from January 5, 2016 to April 12, 2016 at Motions in limine shall be heard on February 3, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 10; and 5. 19 All other pretrial submissions are due on February 17, 2016, as discussed in this order and the pretrial order of November 3, 2015. 20 21 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: November 23, 2015 /s/ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 A separate order shall issue appointing counsel. 5 Plaintiff shall amend the list of his trial exhibits and make other amendments, as needed. 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?