Pasion v. Haviland et al

Filing 71

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 4/06/15 ordering ( Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference set for 5/5/2015 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 26 (AC) before Magistrate Judge Allison Claire.) The parties are required to submit a joint status report to the court by 4/29/15. (See order for further details) (Plummer, M)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GEORGE M. PASION,

12
13
14

No. 2:10-cv-3227 MCE AC P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

JOHN A. HAVILAND, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is a former California prisoner proceeding with counsel in a civil rights action

18

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The mandate of the Ninth Circuit has issued, ordering that the appellate

19

court’s judgment, entered December 22, 2014, takes effect as of February 13, 2015. ECF No. 61.

20

The district court’s screening of the claims against defendant McGuire and grant of summary

21

judgment for defendant Cappel have been vacated and the case remanded. ECF No. 56. The

22

Ninth Circuit declined to address defendant Cappel’s argument that he is entitled to qualified

23

immunity and left that issue to be considered on remand. Id. at 4. Counsel for plaintiff appeared

24

on March 6, 2015 (ECF Nos. 67, 68, 69), and the parties have requested a status conference (ECF

25

No. 70).

26
27
28

Accordingly, pursuant to the provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 and Local
Rule 240, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. A status (pretrial scheduling) conference is set for Wednesday, May 5, 2015, at 10:00
1

1

a.m. in Courtroom #26 before the undersigned. Counsel for the parties may appear

2

telephonically.

3
4

2. The parties are required to submit a joint status report to the court by April 29, 2015,
briefly setting out their views on the following matters:

5

a. Whether further briefing on defendant Cappel’s qualified immunity argument is

6

desired. If the parties desire further briefing, the report should also contain a proposed briefing

7

schedule;

8
9

b. Whether plaintiff seeks to file an amended complaint as to his claims against
defendant McGuire prior to service of the complaint; and

10

c. Proposals for effective case management given the disparate procedural

11

postures of the defendants. Proposals should address the following:

12

i. Service of process;

13

ii. Jurisdiction and venue;

14

iii. Anticipated motions and the scheduling thereof;

15

iv. Anticipated discovery and the scheduling thereof;

16

v. Future proceedings, including appropriate cutoff dates for discovery and

17

pretrial motions, and the scheduling of a pretrial conference and trial and anticipated length of

18

trial;

19
20

vi. Modification of standard pretrial procedures specified by the rules due
to the relative simplicity or complexity of the action or proceedings;

21
22

vii. Whether this matter is to be tried before this court or the district court.
See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c);

23

viii. Whether the parties will stipulate to the trial judge acting as

24

settlement judge and waiving any disqualifications by virtue of his so acting, or whether they

25

prefer to have a settlement conference before another judge; and

26

////

27

////

28

////
2

1

ix. Any other matters that may add to the just and expeditious disposition

2

of this matter.

3

DATED: April 6, 2015

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3