Florence v. Nangalama et al

Filing 123

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 11/15/2017 DISREGARDING plaintiff's 10/18/2017 filing 122 and GRANTING plaintiff 30 days to file specific objections to the 116 pretrial order. Failure to timely comply with this order will result in the issuance of the final pretrial order.(Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

DAVID FLORENCE,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:11-cv-3119 GEB KJN P

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

COLTER,
Defendant.

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding without counsel. On July 28, 2017, the

18

undersigned issued a pretrial order, providing that each party had 14 days in which to file

19

objections. Following multiple extensions of time, on October 18, 2017, plaintiff filed a 37 page

20

document styled, “Plaintiff [sic] Notice of Motion and Amendment Pretrial Order Under F.R.C.P.

21

Rule 10 and L.R. 281.” (ECF No. 122.) The document includes a subheading, “Plaintiff [sic]

22

pretrial statement order.”

23

Rather than setting forth his objections to the pretrial order, or specifically articulating the

24

item or section to which he objects, plaintiff appears to have rewritten his own proposed “pretrial

25

order,” or proposed “pretrial statement,” and also provided myriad exhibits.

26

Plaintiff is advised that the parties previously submitted their pretrial statements, and the

27

court issued its pretrial order. (ECF No. 116.) The pretrial order provided for the parties to file

28

objections, not an entirely new and different pretrial statement. If plaintiff objects to a particular

1

item or section of the pretrial order, he must file objections in which he identifies the section to

2

which he objects, and explain and support the reason why he objects. This court is not required to

3

compare plaintiff’s belated proposed “pretrial statement” or proposed “pretrial order” with the

4

court’s pretrial order in an effort to figure out plaintiff’s objections.1

5

Moreover, plaintiff is not required to submit exhibits, other than his newly- proposed

6

witness declarations. If plaintiff seeks to add new exhibits to the exhibit list, he must explain why

7

the submission was delayed, as explained on pages 4 and 5 of the pretrial order.
Therefore, plaintiff’s filing is disregarded, and plaintiff shall file specific objections to the

8
9

July 28, 2017 pretrial order within thirty days from the date of this order.

10

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

11

1. Plaintiff’s October 18, 2017 filing (ECF No. 122) is disregarded; and

12

2. Plaintiff is granted thirty days from the date of this order in which to file specific

13

objections to the pretrial order. Failure to timely comply with this order will result in the issuance

14

of the final pretrial order.

15

Dated: November 15, 2017

16
17
18
/flor3119.36c

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

For example, plaintiff included a “Points of Law” section, despite the court directing the parties
to do this in their trial briefs prior to trial. (ECF No. 116 at 3.)
2