Gonzalez v. Razo et al
Filing
52
ORDER Denying Plaintiff's 51 Request to Reschedule the Telephonic Status Conference and Request for the Court to Instruct the Institution, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 4/7/17. (Gonzalez, R)
1
2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
4
5
MANUEL ANTONIO GONZALEZ,
6
Plaintiff,
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
v.
J. RAZO, et al.,
Defendants.
1:15-cv-01098-DAD-EPG (PC)
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST TO RESCHEDULE THE
TELEPHONIC STATUS
CONFERENCE AND REQUEST FOR
THE COURT TO INSTRUCT THE
INSTITUTION
(ECF NO. 51)
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO
SEND PLAINTIFF, SUPERVISING
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
MONICA ANDERSON, AND THE
WARDEN OF R.J. DONOVAN
CORRECTIONAL FACILITY A COPY
OF ORDER
ORDER DIRECTING CLERK TO
SEND SUPERVISING DEPUTY
ATTORNEY GENERAL MONICA
ANDERSON AND THE WARDEN OF
R.J. DONOVAN CORRECTIONAL
FACILITY A COPY OF PLAINTIFF’S
REQUEST TO RESCHEDULE THE
TELEPHONIC STATUS
CONFERENCE (ECF NO. 51)
19
20
Manuel Antonio Gonzalez (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner, and is the plaintiff in this
21
civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, which includes attendant state law claims.
22
On March 29, 2017, the Court held a telephonic status conference. Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s
23
counsel were directed to appear. (ECF No. 45). Plaintiff was served with a copy of the order
24
directing him to appear on March 14, 2017. Plaintiff did not appear.
25
On April 3, 2017, Plaintiff filed a request to reschedule the telephonic status conference
26
and for the Court to instruct the institution (“the Request”). (ECF No. 51). Plaintiff asks the
27
Court to reschedule the status conference, to instruct the institution, the Warden, the Litigation
28
Coordinator, and Correctional Counselor Medina to comply with the order scheduling the
1
1
status conference, and to notify Plaintiff about what took place at the status conference.
2
According to Plaintiff, he was deliberately denied access to the status conference. Plaintiff
3
notified the Litigation Coordinator and Correctional Counselor Medina about the status
4
conference, but was not provided access to the status conference.
5
The Request to reschedule the conference and inform Plaintiff of what happened will be
6
denied. Plaintiff’s attorney attended the status conference and addressed the Court’s questions
7
for the time being. Plaintiff’s attorney can inform Plaintiff of what occurred.
8
That said, the Court is concerned about Plaintiff’s access to his counsel and the Court.
9
Plaintiff indicates that he informed the institution of his requirement to attend the conference
10
and was not permitted to attend. The Court already requested that the Warden of R.J. Donovan
11
Correctional Facility confirm that Plaintiff is receiving his legal mail and that Plaintiff has
12
access to his counsel and the Court (ECF No. 48), and the Request has only increased the
13
Court’s concerns.
14
Accordingly, the Court will direct the Clerk of Court to serve a copy of the Request and
15
this order on the Warden of R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility and Supervising Deputy
16
Attorney General Monica Anderson, so that the Warden will have the benefit of this
17
information and opportunity to address the Request in his response to the Court’s order of
18
March 29, 2017, if he so chooses.
19
Therefore, based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
20
1. The Request to reschedule the status conference is DENIED;
21
2. The Clerk of Court is directed to send Plaintiff, Supervising Deputy Attorney
22
General Monica Anderson, and the Warden of R.J. Donovan Correctional
23
Facility a copy of this order; and
24
\\\
25
\\\
26
\\\
27
\\\
28
\\\
2
1
3. The Clerk of Court is directed to send Supervising Deputy Attorney General
2
Monica Anderson and the Warden of R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility a copy
3
of the Request, (ECF No. 51).
4
5
6
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
April 7, 2017
/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?