Lopez v. Peterson, et al

Filing 451

STIPULATION and ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Edmund F. Brennan on 2/22/16 ORDERING that the status conference currently scheduled for Wednesday, March 2, 2016, be moved to Wednesday, March 30 April 6, 2016, for the purpose of facilitating plaintiff's counsel's clearance at PBSP and visitation with his client. (Dillon, M)

Download PDF
4 ROBERT NAVARRO Attorney at Law State Bar No. 128461 1295 North Wishon Avenue, Suite 207 Fresno, California 93728 tel: 559.240.2354 fax: 559.497.5471 robrojo@att.net 5 Attorneys for Andrew Rick Lopez 1 2 3 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, 8 SACRAMENTO DIVISION 9 10 11 ANDREW R. LOPEZ, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 2:98-cv-2111-MCE-EFB P v. STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO RESCHEDULE STATUS CONFERENCE D. PETERSON, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 19 Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16(b)(4) and Local Rule 143, the parties, through their counsel of record, agree to and request a continuance of the status conference currently scheduled for Wednesday, March 2, 2016, to Wednesday, March 30, 2016. 20 21 plaintiff Andrew Rick Lopez was unexpectedly transferred from his 15 year placement at Corcoran State Prison to Pelican Bay State Prison (PBSP) at the conclusion of his trial 22 23 Good cause exists to grant this stipulation because [Proposed] Order 1 in Lopez v. Cook, 1:03-cv-01605 KJM EFB, late last month while he was still placed 2 temporarily at California State Prison, Sacramento, as an “out to court” inmate. While 3 4 he has been transferred to PBSP, his legal property has not reached him yet. Secondly, plaintiff’s counsel was unable to visit his client on Tuesday, February 16, as had been planned, because Legal Visiting at PBSP states it cannot clear counsel for legal visitation 5 until a technical discrepancy on his background check is resolved, even though counsel 6 is currently cleared at other California prisons, including Corcoran. A scheduling order may be modified only upon a showing of good cause and by 7 8 leave of Court. Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b)(1)(A), 16(b)(4); see, e.g., Johnson v. Mam-moth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (describing the factors a court should consider in 9 ruling on such a motion). In considering whether a party moving for a schedule 10 modification has good cause, the Court primarily focuses on the diligence of the party 11 12 seeking the modification. Johnson, 975 F.2d at 609 (citing Fed.R.Civ.P. 16 advisory committee’s notes of 1983 amendment). “The district court may modify the pretrial schedule ‘if it cannot reasonably be met despite the diligence of the party seeking the 13 amendment.’” Id. (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 16 advisory committee notes of 1983 amend- 14 ment). The clearance issue has to do with a misdemeanor arrest of counsel, Robert 15 16 17 Navarro, in October 2011, as part of a civil disobedience protest organized by Occupy Fresno. Approximately 109 misdemeanor arrests were made during a six week period during the Occupy Fresno protest. Counsel was the lead attorney for Occupy Fresno, 18 which filed a civil rights lawsuit against Fresno County. The lawsuit was settled in 19 2012. As part of the settlement in the case, the parties agreed that the Fresno County 20 21 District Attorney would not prosecute any of the Occupy Fresno arrests, including mine. The settlement was approved by the Hon. Charles R. Breyer (sitting by assignment). See, Occupy Fresno v. County of Fresno, 1:11-cv-01894, Doc. 121, p. 7, ¶ F 22 23 [Proposed] Order 1 [approved settlement agreement, “Non-prosecution” clause]. 2 ever occurred regarding counsel’s misdemeanor citation. 3 4 Thus, no prosecution Attorney Visiting at PBSP has informed counsel that even though they understand that the civil case settlement resolved the misdemeanor arrest, the criminal records background check shows that there was an arrest in 2011, but it does not 5 indicate any disposition. Counsel has been instructed to have the disposition supplied 6 to the California Department of Justice so that the background check will show that 7 8 matter was “dismissed” or disposed of in some manner without conviction. Counsel has followed all the suggestions made by PBSP, including inquiries to the Fresno County Sheriff’s Office, the federal court (including an email directly to 9 Judge Breyer’s chambers), and with the Fresno County District Attorney’s Office. None 10 of these contacts have resulted in resolving the matter. Counsel, with the assistance of 11 12 defendants’ counsel, has contacted persons in the California Department of Justice who may be able help counsel to satisfy the request of PBSP. Counsel is currently awaiting a response from these contacts. 13 Counsel has reviewed the Peterson litigation and is prepared to discuss the status 14 of the case going forward with plaintiff, however, for the moment he has no access to 15 16 17 18 19 20 his client. Counsel was informed by PBSP that even confidential telephone calls cannot be permitted until the clearance issue is resolved. Consequently, the parties stipulate to a 28 day continuance of the status conference in this case in order to allow time for counsel’s clearance and an opportunity to meet and confer with his client regarding this case. IT IS SO STIPULATED. Dated: February 17, 2016 /s/Robert Navarro ROBERT NAVARRO Attorneys for Andrew Rick Lopez 21 22 23 [Proposed] Order 1 Dated: February 17, 2016 KAMALA D. HARRIS Attorney General of California CHRISTOPHER J. BECKER Supervising Deputy Attorney General 2 3 4 By: 5 6 /s/Diana Esquivel DIANA ESQUIVEL Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for Defendants 7 ORDER 8 9 10 11 12 13 Based on the parties’ stipulation and good cause appearing, it is ordered that: The status conference currently scheduled for Wednesday, March 2, 2016, be moved to Wednesday, March 30 April 6, 2016, for the purpose of facilitating plaintiff’s counsel’s clearance at PBSP and visitation with his client. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 22, 2016. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 [Proposed] Order

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?