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)

Download PDF
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

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?