Kinney v. Brazelton, et al.

Filing 84

ORDER requiring Defendant to file a response to 83 MOTION for EXTENSION OF TIME within Seven (7) Days signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng on 12172016. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
10

DIJON KINNEY,

11
12
13
14

CASE NO. 1:14-cv-00503-AWI-MJS (PC)
Plaintiff,

v.
P.D. BRAZELTON, et al.,

ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANT TO
FILE A RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
WITHIN SEVEN DAYS

Defendants.

15
16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil

18

rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action proceeds against

19

Defendant Flores on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims for inadequate medical care

20

and cruel and unusual punishment. The matter is set for trial before the Honorable

21

Anthony W. Ishii on May 2, 2017. Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for an extension

22

of time to file a pretrial statement. (ECF No. 83.)

23

On October 3, 2016, the undersigned issued a scheduling order setting a January

24

6, 2017 deadline for Plaintiff to file a pretrial statement. (ECF No. 70.) A telephonic trial

25

confirmation hearing was set for March 3, 2017.

26

Plaintiff, acting under the mistaken belief that his pretrial statement is due

27

December 23, 2016, has requested an extension of time to March 20, 2017 in which to

28

1

file his pretrial statement. Plaintiff states that he was transported from the California City

2

Correctional Facility to the California Substance Abuse Treatment Center to attend what

3

turned out to be an unsuccessful settlement conference in this case. He was not

4

permitted to bring his legal materials. He believes it will take at least three months for the

5

California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to transfer him back to California

6

City1 and to release his legal materials.

7

Plaintiff must file his pretrial statement well in advance of the trial confirmation

8

hearing so that Defendant may file a responsive statement and the District Judge may

9

issue a pretrial order prior to the hearing. Plaintiff’s requested extension of time – to

10

March 20, 2017, more than two weeks after the scheduled hearing – would necessitate

11

the rescheduling of multiple pretrial deadlines and possibly trial. The Court will not grant

12

such a request based on mere speculation that Plaintiff may not receive his legal

13

materials for several months.

14

Accordingly, Defendant is HEREBY ORDERED to file a response to Plaintiff’s

15

motion within seven days of the date of this order. Defendant should indicate therein

16

whether Plaintiff will be returned to California City prior to trial, whether Plaintiff’s legal

17

materials have been released to him and, if not, when such release can be expected.

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20

Dated:

December 17, 2016

/s/

21

Michael J. Seng

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

The Court notes that Plaintiff’s address of record remains at the California City Correctional Facility. If he
is not presently housed at that address, he must file a change of address form. Failure to do so may result
in dismissal of the action. Local Rule 183(b).

2