Dial v. Heatley et al

Filing 56

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Allison Claire on 1/22/2015 ORDERING that the extended discovery deadline in this action expired on 1/20/2015, the dispositive motion deadline is RESET to 3/31/2015; plaintiff's 54 "motion" filed 12/8/2014 is DENIED as improperly filed; within 14 days, defendants shall file and serve a statement informing the court of the status of plaintiff's videoconference deposition. (Yin, K)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 RODNEY DIAL, 12 13 14 15 No. 2:12-cv-2569 AC P Plaintiff, v. ORDER SCOTT HEATLEY, et al., Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 18 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds against five defendants based on plaintiff’s claim that 19 defendants were deliberately indifferent to plaintiff’s serious medical needs in violation of the 20 Eighth Amendment. Two matters require the court’s attention. 21 First, defendants ask for clarification of this court’s order filed November 3, 2014, in 22 which the court approved defendants’ proposed order extending by seventy-five days the 23 discovery and dispositive motion deadlines in this action. That order shall be construed to extend 24 the discovery deadline seventy-five days from the filing date of the court’s order (to January 20, 25 2015), and to extend the dispositive motion deadline seventy-five days from its previously 26 existing deadline (to March 31, 2015). The Clerk of Court shall correct the “reset deadlines” 27 docket entry made on November 3, 2014. 28 Second, plaintiff’s wife has submitted a “motion” requesting that plaintiff’s deposition via 1 videoconference be delayed until his mental health has improved. Ms. Dial has submitted an 2 exhibit demonstrating that, as of October 24, 2014, plaintiff was considered in “mental health 3 crisis” by an Institutional Classification Committee at the California Department of Corrections 4 and Rehabilitation. See ECF No. 54 at 3. Ms. Dial states that plaintiff’s “mental health has 5 deteriorated from [the] Correctional Clinical Case Management System, CCCMS, to the more 6 serious Enhanced Outpatient Program, then to the very serious health needs requiring treatment 7 by the Department of Mental Health, DMH.” (Id. at 1.) 8 9 Ms. Dial is informed that she may not represent her husband in this action, or file any legal papers on his behalf. “[T]he sixth amendment affords the right of self-representation, not 10 lay representation.” United States v. Wright, 568 F.2d 142, 143 (9th Cir. 1978) (citing Faretta v. 11 California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975)). “The Supreme Court, in stating that the history of the right to 12 counsel included the seeking of advice from friends, did not extend the sixth amendment to 13 encompass the right to be represented before the bar of a court by a lay[person].” Id. (citations 14 omitted). While Ms. Dial may help in the preparation of plaintiff’s court documents, plaintiff 15 must review, date and sign all submissions to the court. 16 Nevertheless, the court directs defendants to file and serve, within fourteen days after the 17 filing date of this order, a statement informing the court whether plaintiff’s videoconference 18 deposition took place on September 25, 2014, as previously arranged, see ECF No. 48, or whether 19 plaintiff’s deposition remains outstanding. If the latter, defendants shall inform the court of any 20 current date and plan to conduct plaintiff’s deposition; in addition, defendants shall inquire of the 21 Litigation Coordinator at plaintiff’s place of incarceration whether such planned deposition is 22 feasible and, if not, defendants’ intended course of action. 23 In summary, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 24 1. The extended discovery deadline in this action expired on January 20, 2015; the 25 26 27 28 dispositive motion deadline is reset to March 31, 2015. 2. Plaintiff’s “motion” filed December 8, 2014, ECF No. 54, is denied because improperly filed. 3. Within fourteen days after the filing date of this order, defendants shall file and serve a 2 1 2 3 statement informing the court of the status of plaintiff’s videoconference deposition. SO ORDERED. DATED: January 22, 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

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?