Richard S. Kindred v. Allenby et al

Filing 91

ORDER Modifying 43 Scheduling Order and Vacating Telephonic Trial Confirmation Hearing and Related Deadlines, signed by Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean on 08/30/2021. (Maldonado, C)

Case 1:18-cv-00554-DAD-EPG Document 91 Filed 08/30/21 Page 1 of 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RICHARD SCOTT KINDRED,

12
13
14
15
16

Case No. 1:18-cv-00554-DAD-EPG (PC)

Plaintiff,
v.
BRANDON PRICE, et al.,

ORDER MODYFYING SCHEDULING
ORDER AND VACATING TELEPHONIC
TRIAL CONFIRMATION HEARING AND
RELATED DEADLINES

Defendant.
(ECF No. 43)

17
18
19

Plaintiff Richard Scott Kindred (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in
forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

20

On April 30, 2020, the Court entered a Scheduling Order which, among other things, set a

21

Telephonic Trial Confirmation Hearing before District Judge Dale A. Drozd on October 25, 2021.

22

(ECF No. 43.) The Court also set related deadlines for, in relevant part, filing motion(s) for the

23

attendance of confined witnesses and oppositions to the same, submitting money orders for the

24

Marshals Service to serve unconfined witnesses who refuse to testify, notifying the Court of the

25

names and locations of Plaintiff’s witnesses, and filing pretrial statements. (Id. at 5-9.)

26

On December 4, 2020, Defendants Brandon Price, J. Corona, and Jorge Lopez

27

(“Defendants”) filed a motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s claims for violation of his

28

Fourth Amendment rights as to each defendant and for violation of Plaintiff’s First Amendment
1

Case 1:18-cv-00554-DAD-EPG Document 91 Filed 08/30/21 Page 2 of 2
1

Rights against defendants Corona and Lopez. (Doc. No. 65.) Plaintiff filed an opposition on

2

March 11, 2021. (Doc. No. 75.) Defendants filed a reply on March 26, 2021. (Doc. No. 76.) On

3

June 15, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge entered findings and recommendations

4

recommending that defendants’ motion be granted in part and denied in part. (Doc. No. 80.) On

5

July 20, 2021, Defendants filed objections to the findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 86.)

6

On August 20, 2021, Plaintiff filed his response to Defendants’ objections. (ECF No. 90.)

7

The findings and recommendations entered on June 15, 2021, are currently pending before

8

Judge Drozd. Accordingly, the Court will vacate the Telephonic Trial Confirmation Hearing and

9

related deadlines, to be reset following a final order on Defendants’ motion for summary

10

judgment. Additionally, the Court will direct the parties to file status reports after the summary

11

judgment motion is resolved addressing whether they would like to participate in a further

12

settlement conference.

13

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

14

1. The Telephonic Trial Confirmation Hearing currently set for October 25, 2021, and

15

the related deadlines for filing motion(s) for the attendance of confined witnesses and

16

oppositions to the same, submitting money orders for the Marshals Service to serve

17

unconfined witnesses who refuse to testify, notifying the Court of the names and

18

locations of Plaintiff’s witnesses, and filing pretrial statements as set forth in the

19

Scheduling Order (ECF No. 43) are hereby vacated, to be reset following a final order

20

on Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as necessary; and

21

2. No later than twenty-one (21) days after entry of an order on Defendants’ motion for

22

summary judgment, the parties shall file status reports indicating each party’s position

23

on whether a settlement conference would be productive.

24
25
26
27

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

August 30, 2021

/s/
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

28
2