Burton v. Foulk et al

Filing 63

ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Deborah Barnes on 11/30/2020 DENYING as premature plaintiff's 57 motion for writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum and plaintiff's 58 motion in limine. (Yin, K)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

HARRISON BURTON,

12

No. 2:13-cv-2123 JAM DB P

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

F. FOULK, et al.,

15

ORDER

Defendants.

16
17

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed this civil

18

rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States

19

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

20

Before this court are plaintiff’s motion requesting that writs be issued for witnesses at trial

21

and plaintiff’s motion in limine requesting that impermissibly inflammatory evidence about him

22

be excluded at trial. (See ECF Nos. 57, 58). In addition, plaintiff has filed a “request to

23

prosecute pretrial matters.” (ECF No. 61). For the reasons stated below, the motions will be

24

denied as premature. The court has also considered plaintiff’s request to prosecute.

25

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment was granted in part and denied in part on

26

November 14, 2019. (ECF No. 50). As a result, this matter was proceeding to trial on plaintiff’s

27

remaining claims. Shortly thereafter, in March 2020, federal courts were shut down due to the

28

COVID-19 pandemic, and all calendared civil and criminal jury trials in this district were
1

1

continued pending further order of the court. See General Order No. 611 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 16,

2

2020). These facts, coupled with the recent resurgence of the virus in the State of California, 1

3

have served to impede the normal progression of judicial proceedings significantly.
Given these facts, as well as the time that has elapsed since the court’s ruling on

4
5

defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the parties may wish to consider the option of settling

6

the matter in lieu of proceeding to trial. To that end, under separate order, the court shall direct

7

the parties to do so. For this reason, plaintiff’s motion for writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum

8

and his motion in limine shall be denied as premature.

9

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff’s motion for writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum (ECF No. 57) is

10
11

DENIED as premature, and
2. Plaintiff’s motion in limine (ECF No. 58) is DENIED as premature.

12
13

Dated: November 30, 2020

14
15
16
17
18

DLB:13
DB/ORDERS/ORDERS.PRISONER.CIVIL RIGHTS/burt2123.whcat.mil.den

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

See Office of Governor Gavin Newsom, State Issues Limited Stay at Home Order to Slow
Spread of COVID-19, CA.Gov (Nov. 19, 2020), https://www.gov.ca.gov/2020/11/19/state-issueslimited-stay-at-home-order-to-slow-spread-of-covid-19/.
2