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)

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