Florence v. Nangalama et al

Filing 70

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman on 03/03/15 ordering that plaintiff's motion 69 is denied without prejudice. (Plummer, M)

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

A.W. NANGALAMA, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42

18

U.S.C. § 1983. On February 20, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion requesting a court order that

19

plaintiff be allowed to contact his inmate witnesses to ensure they are still willing to testify at trial

20

in this matter. Plaintiff claims that pursuant to the September 9, 2014 scheduling order, he is

21

required to file a pretrial statement by March 20, 2015. However, plaintiff is mistaken. The

22

March 20, 2015 deadline is the deadline for pretrial motions, including motions for summary

23

judgment, not plaintiff’s pretrial statement. Although the scheduling order provided plaintiff with

24

the information he will need to file a pretrial statement, the deadline for filing a pretrial statement

25

has not yet been set. (ECF No. 56 at 4-5.) Rather, the court must resolve any dispositive motions

26

first. Once such motions are resolved, the court will issue a further scheduling order as

27

appropriate. (ECF No. 56 at 5:18-19.) Pretrial statements will not be required until shortly before

28

the pretrial conference date.
1

1
2

Moreover, plaintiff has provided detailed declarations from each inmate witness,
including their inmate identification number. (ECF No. 69 at 4-19.)

3

For the above reasons, plaintiff’s motion is premature. Once any dispositive motions have

4

been resolved, or the dispositive motion deadline has passed without the filing of such dispositive

5

motion, plaintiff may renew his motion. Plaintiff need not re-file the motion in its entirety, but

6

may simply renew his motion based on his February 20, 2015 filing.

7

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 69) is denied

8

without prejudice.

9

Dated: March 3, 2015

10
11
12
13
/flor3119.den

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2