Hamilton v. Wasco State Prison, et al.

Filing 54

ORDER DENYING 52 Plaintiff's Motion for Case Conference and 53 Motion for Service of Subpoenas for Trial signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 7/6/2016. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ALBERT J. HAMILTON,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

CHENDEHEN,

15

Defendant.

16
17

Case No.: 1:15-cv-00661-AWI-SAB (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR
CASE CONFERENCE AND MOTION FOR
SERVICE OF SUBPOENAS FOR TRIAL
[ECF Nos. 52 & 53]

Plaintiff Albert J. Hamilton is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action

18

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), Plaintiff consented to the jurisdiction of

19

the United States Magistrate Judge on May 28, 2015. Local Rule 302.

20
21

On July 5, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion for a case conference and motion for court to serve
subpoenas for trial. (ECF Nos. 52 & 53.) Plaintiff’s motions must be denied.

22

I.

23

DISCUSSION

24

I.

Motion for Case Conference

25

Plaintiff requests the Court conduct “some kind of case conference.” (ECF No. 52.) Plaintiff

26

is advised that the Court does not and will not conduct a conference merely at the request of one of the

27

parties and there is no basis to conduct a conference in this case at the present time. Indeed, on May

28

19, 2016, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the action for failure to state a cognizable claim for
1

1

relief, which is presently pending review by the Court. Pursuant to Local Rule 230(l), all motions

2

filed in this case are deemed submitted after the deadline for filing an opposition and reply has

3

expired, unless the Court determines that a hearing is necessary. The Court has not determined that a

4

hearing is necessary and not order on the motion to dismiss has been issued. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s

5

motion for a case conference must be denied.

6

II.

Motion for Service of Subpoenas for Trial

7

Plaintiff requests that the Court serve subpoenas for two inmate witnesses to be presented at

8

trial. Plaintiff’s motion must be denied as premature. First, this case is not yet ripe for trial as a

9

motion to dismiss is pending, and a discovery and scheduling order has not issued. Second, Plaintiff

10

cannot simply request that subpoenas issue without complying with the necessary procedural

11

requirements which will be provided at a later date if appropriate. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for

12

the issuance of subpoenas must be denied.

13

II.

14

ORDER

15

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

16

1.

Plaintiff’s motion for a case conference is DENIED; and

17

2.

Plaintiff’s motion for service of subpoenas is DENIED.

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20

Dated:

21

July 6, 2016
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2