King v. Deathriage et al

Filing 76

ORDER overruling Plaintiff's 74 Objections to pretrial order signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 4/14/2017. (Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 MICHEAL STEVEN KING, Plaintiff, 10 11 Case No. 1:14-cv-00111-LJO-SAB-PC ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TO PRETRIAL ORDER v. (Doc. No. 74) 12 13 S. DEATHRIAGE, et al., Defendants. 14 15 Plaintiff Michael Steven King is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 16 rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case is set for a jury trial on Plaintiff’s claims 17 against Defendants Deathriage, Martinez, and Briones for excessive force in violation of the 18 Eighth Amendment. 19 Currently before the Court are Plaintiff’s objections to the pretrial order, filed April 7, 20 2017. (ECF No. 74.) Plaintiff objects as follows: (1) the witness list should contain his proposed 21 witnesses; (2) it is a HIPAA violation for Defendants to review his medical records without his 22 permission; (3) his request for discovery of records showing Defendants’ history of misconduct 23 should not be denied because it would prove his case; and (4) contrary to the statement that he 24 does not have exhibits, he plans to provide exhibits at trial. 25 The rulings regarding Plaintiff’s witnesses, assertions of HIPAA violations, and 26 discovery requests are addressed in prior orders. (ECF Nos. 66, 67, 69). The pretrial order is 27 consistent with those rulings. Plaintiff has presented no grounds for reconsideration of those 28 orders or the pretrial order 1 Regarding exhibits, as explained during the telephonic trial confirmation hearing, 2 Plaintiff failed to identify or list his proposed trial exhibits in his pretrial statement. (ECF No. 3 64.) Nor were Plaintiff’s proposed exhibits otherwise disclosed to Defendants, according to 4 defense counsel. (ECF No. 61, p. 4 n.1.) Local Rule 281, which Plaintiff was provided with, 5 required Plaintiff to list his exhibits in his pretrial statement, and provides that “[o]nly exhibits so 6 listed will be permitted to be offered at trial….” L.R. 281(b)(11). (ECF No. 47-1.) Thus, at this 7 time, Plaintiff’s unidentified exhibits are excluded. As explained to him, Plaintiff may use 8 Defendant’s exhibits if he wishes. 9 Accordingly, Plaintiff’s objections to pretrial order, filed April 7, 2017 (ECF No. 74), are 10 OVERRULED. 11 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ April 14, 2017 UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE 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?