Hunt v. Reyes et al
Filing
154
ORDER continuing the 7/29/2014 jury trial to 1/5/2015 at 9:00 a.m. in courtroom 7. Signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 7/11/2014. (Deutsch, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
MICHAEL HUNT,
12
No. 2:08-cv-00181-MCE-CKD
Plaintiff In Pro,
13
v.
14
D. RIOS,
15
ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL
Defendant.
16
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED the July 29, 2014 jury trial is vacated and
17
18
continued to January 5, 2015, at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 7.
19
The Joint Final Pretrial Statement is due not later than December 3, 2014 and
20
shall comply with the procedures outlined in the Court’s April 29, 2014 Supplemental
21
Pretrial Scheduling Order.
Any evidentiary or procedural motions are to be filed by December 3, 2014.
22
23
Oppositions must be filed by December 10, 2014 and any reply must be filed by
24
December 17, 2014. The motions will be heard by the Court at the same time as the
25
Final Pretrial Conference. Because the parties are required to refile their Motions in
26
Limine in accordance with the deadlines set forth in this order, the parties’ pending
27
motions in limine, ECF Nos. 120-132, 137, are DENIED without prejudice to refiling.
28
///
1
1
The July 1, 2014 Amended Order and Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum,
2
ECF No. 139, is VACATED. Magistrate Judge Delaney is DIRECTED to issue an
3
Amended Order and Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Testificandum ordering the Custodian to
4
produce Plaintiff Michael Hunt at 9:00 a.m. on January 5, 2015 in Courtroom 7. The
5
Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to serve courtesy copies of this minute order on the: (1)
6
Out-To-Court Desk, California State Prison - Sacramento, P.O. Box 290007, Represa,
7
California 95671; (2) Warden at California State Prison, Solano, 2100 Peabody Road,
8
P.O. Box 4000, Vacaville, California, 95696-4000; and (3) Litigation Coordinator at
9
California State Prison, Solano via fax at 707-454-3429.
10
Due to the Court’s high civil caseload, the parties are encouraged to consider
11
consenting to a jury or nonjury trial before the assigned Magistrate Judge1 as well as
12
availing themselves of the Court’s Alternative Dispute Resolution programs.2 See E.D.
13
Cal. Local Rs. 171, 301.
14
15
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: July 11, 2014
16
__________
__________
___________
__________
____
MORRISON C. ENGL
N
LAND, JR, C
CHIEF JUDG
GE
UNITED ST
TATES DIS
STRICT COU
URT
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
The Eastern District of California has for years been one of the busiest District Courts in the
nation. The parties are reminded that pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 73 and Local Rule 301,
the parties may consent to a jury or nonjury trial before the assigned Magistrate Judge. As a result of the
Court’s high civil case load and the statutory right to a speedy trial in criminal cases, the parties are
encouraged to consider the advantages of consenting to Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. Magistrate Judges
can assign civil litigants a trial date much sooner and with more certainty than District Court Judges. In
addition, since Magistrate Judges do not try felony cases, a trial date assigned by one can be considered
a firm date which will not be preempted by a criminal case. Exercise of this jurisdiction by a Magistrate
Judge is however, permitted only if all parties file a voluntarily consent form. Parties may, without adverse
substantive consequences, withhold their consent, but this will prevent the Court's case dispositive
jurisdiction from being exercised by a Magistrate Judge.
2
The Court may, at the election of all the parties, refer certain actions to the Voluntary Dispute
Resolution Program ("VDRP"). If the parties believe that participation in a mediation and/or a settlement
conference with a Magistrate Judge would be beneficial, they are encouraged to contact the Court's
Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) Division, in writing, at the address or email address below: ADR
Division, Attention: Sujean Park, U.S. District Court, 501 I Street, Suite 4-200, Sacramento, CA 95814,
email: spark@caed.uscourts.gov. Alternatively, the parties may request referral to the VDRP by filing a
Stipulation and Proposed Order reflecting the agreement of all parties to submit the action to the VDRP
pursuant to Local Rule 271. Should the parties reach a settlement or otherwise resolve their case by
agreement of the parties, they are reminded that it is the duty of counsel to immediately file a notice of
settlement or resolution as set forth in Local Rule 160.
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?