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)

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