Hawkins v. Ibarra et al

Filing 57

ORDER DIRECTING Defendant to Respond to Plaintiff's Motion to Continue Telephonic Trial Confirmation Hearing, signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 2/21/17. Response due by 3/1/2017. (Marrujo, C)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 HOMER EARL HAWKINS, 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, v. Case No. 1:14-cv-00009-BAM (PC) ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANT TO RESPOND TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO CONTINUE TELEPHONIC TRIAL CONFIRMATION HEARING S. IBARRA, (ECF No. 56) Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Homer Earl Hawkins (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro in this civil 18 rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s claim against defendant 19 S. Ibarra (“Defendant”) for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment. All parties 20 have consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction. (ECF No. 4, 48.) A telephonic trial confirmation 21 hearing is scheduled for March 22, 2017, and trial is scheduled for June 6, 2017. 22 On February 17, 2017, Plaintiff filed document entitled “Request to Intervene into the 23 Second Scheduling Order.” Plaintiff requests that the Court extend the telephonic trial 24 confirmation hearing due to water damage at Plaintiff’s institution which has precluded Plaintiff 25 from preparing for the hearing. (ECF No. 56.) The Court construes the request as a motion to 26 continue the telephonic trial confirmation hearing. The Court finds a response from Defendant 27 regarding this motion to be necessary. Therefore, Defendant shall file a response to Plaintiff’s 28 motion by March 1, 2017. 1 1 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that Defendant shall file a response to 2 Plaintiff’s motion to continue the telephonic trial confirmation hearing no later than March 1, 3 2017. 4 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Barbara February 21, 2017 A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 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?