Smith v. Hutchinson et al

Filing 29

ORDER Requesting Response Regarding Prisoner's Non-Appearance for Court-Ordered Conference signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 2/7/2018. 14-day deadline. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TOY TERRELL SMITH, 12 13 14 15 Plaintiff, v. 1:16-cv-01924-AWI-EPG (PC) ORDER REQUESTING RESPONSE REGARDING PRISONER’S NONAPPEARANCE FOR COURT-ORDERED CONFERENCE R.M. HUTCHINSON, et al, Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Toy Terrell Smith (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with 18 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He is presently incarcerated at California 19 State Prison-Sacramento (“CSP-Sacramento”) which is a state prison under the authority of the 20 California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”). 21 On November 7, 2017, the Court issued an Order setting a “mandatory scheduling 22 conference” for February 7, 2018. (ECF No. 17.) With regard to Plaintiff’s appearance at the 23 conference, the Order stated: 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff shall make arrangements with staff at his or her institution of confinement for his or her attendance at the mandatory telephonic initial scheduling conference. Plaintiff's institution of confinement shall make Plaintiff available for the conference at the date and time indicated above. To the extent possible, prior to the conference defense counsel shall confirm with Plaintiff's institution of confinement that arrangements have been made for Plaintiff's attendance. If Plaintiff is in the custody of the California Department of 1 1 2 3 Corrections and Rehabilitation, the Clerk of Court shall send a copy of this order to the litigation coordinator at Plaintiff's institution of confinement. (Id. at 3.) Plaintiff did not appear for the February 7, 2018 mandatory scheduling conference. 4 Defense counsel appeared and confirmed that arrangements were made with the litigation 5 coordinator at CSP-Sacramento for Plaintiff’s appearance. The Court waited for approximately 6 twenty minutes before re-scheduling the conference. 7 Before the Court concludes that its November 7, 2017 Order was violated and sanctions 8 are appropriate, it invites the litigation coordinator at CSP-Sacramento to submit statements 9 explaining the reason for Plaintiff’s non-appearance for the February 7, 2018 mandatory 10 11 12 scheduling conference. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS as follows: Within 14 days of this Order, the litigation coordinator at CSP-Sacramento is directed to 13 file a response to this Order explaining the reason for Plaintiff’s non-appearance for the 14 February 7, 2018 mandatory scheduling conference. 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 Dated: February 7, 2018 /s/ 18 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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?