Villery v. Garcia et al

Filing 73

ORDER Directing Defendants to File a Response to Plaintiff's Motion Filed April 21, 2017, signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 4/24/2017. Response due within ten (10) days. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

JARED VILLERY,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
EDWARD GARCIA, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

Case No.: 1:15-cv-00936-LJO-SAB (PC)
ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO FILE A
RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION, FILED
APRIL 21, 2017
[ECF No. 71]

Plaintiff Jared Villery is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action

17
18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
This action is proceeding against Defendants George Rodriguez, Bryan Lindsey, Edward

19
20

Granillo, Brian Dagama, and David Stewart for retaliation in violation of the First Amendment.1 The

21

case is currently set for jury trial before the undersigned on August 1, 2017.
Pursuant to the Court’s February 7, 2017, second scheduling order, Plaintiff was required to

22
23

file a pretrial statement on or before April 14, 2017. Plaintiff has not filed a pretrial statement;

24

however, on April 21, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for an emergency continuance and an order under

25

the All Writs Act. (ECF No. 71.)

26
27
28

1

Defendants George Rodriguez, Bryan Lindsey, and Edward Granillo are represented by the law firm of Burke, Williams
& Sorensen, and Defendants Brian Dagama and David Stewart are represented by the Office of the Attorney General.

1

1

Plaintiff contends that he is presently in the mental health crisis bed unit and has been

2

transferred to the California Healthcare Facility. Because of the applicable regulations, Plaintiff

3

contends that he does not have access to his legal property in order to prosecute this action. Based on

4

Plaintiff’s allegations the Court hereby directs Defendants to file a response to Plaintiff’s motion

5

within ten (10) days from the date of service of this order. PRIOR TO RESPONDING, COUNSEL

6

FOR THE DEFENDANTS IS TO CONFIRM WITH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF

7

CORRECTIONS THE ACCURACY OF THIS REPRESENTATION BY THE PLAINTIFF. In light

8

of this order, the parties deadlines to file pretrial statements are vacated and will be re-set after the

9

instant motion is addressed and resolved.

10
11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____

April 24, 2017

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2