Dicey v. Pickens et al

Filing 79

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 11/17/2010 ORDERING that dfts' objection to the pretrial order is SUSTAINED, their proposed Exhibit A is an Abstract Judgment dated 10/16/1998; pltf's 70 motion for blank subpoena/writ forms is DENIED. (Yin, K)

(PC)Dicey v. Pickens et al

Doc. 79

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 vs. S. PICKENS, et al., Defendants. / ORDER IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA BERLAN LYNELL DICEY, Plaintiff, No. CIV S-06-0482 KJM P

In the pretrial order issued October 22, 2010, the court identified one of defendants' proposed exhibits as an Abstract of Judgment for plaintiff dated October 16, 1988. Defendants have objected, noting that the correct date on the proposed exhibit is October 16, 1998. The date correction is accepted; this acceptance does not constitute a ruling on the admissibility of the exhibit. Plaintiff has asked for two blank subpoenas and/or writs of habeas corpus ad testificandum so he can subpoena Inmate Craver as a witness at trial. In a separate filing, the court has issued a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum for Inmate Craver's presence at trial. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. Defendants' objection to the pretrial order is sustained. Their proposed exhibit A is an Abstract of Judgment dated October 16, 1998. 1
Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
2 dice0482.ord

2. Plaintiff's motion for blank subpoena/writ forms (docket no. 70) is denied. DATED: November 17, 2010.

2