Meneweather v. Powell et al

Filing 170

ORDER, Motions terminated: 168 MOTION for Extension of Time to File filed by Tomas Lopez Meneweather, 163 MOTION in Limine filed by R. Reyes, T.G. Miller, G. Bailey, T. Rincon, J. Ippolito, O'Kelly, B. Powell, D. Ferry, A. Meyers., ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge VADAS for Settlement. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 2/21/13. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/25/2013)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

OAKLAND DIVISION

11
12 TOMAS LOPEZ MENEWEATHER,

Plaintiff,

13

vs.

14

15 B. POWELL, et al.,

Defendants.

16

Case No: C 07-4204 SBA (pr)
ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME, DENYING
MOTIONS IN LIMINE WITHOUT
PREJUDICE, and REFERRING
ACTION FOR SETTLEMENT
Docket 163, 168

17
18
19

I.

INTRODUCTION
This prisoner civil rights case was scheduled to go to trial on September 17, 2012.

20

However, on August 17, 2012, Plaintiff, who is pro se, filed a motion for continuance based

21

on alleged medical reasons. Dkt. 162. Shortly thereafter, Defendants filed their motions in

22

limine on August 24, 2012. Dkt. 163. On the same day, the Court issued an order granting

23

Plaintiff twenty-one days to resubmit his motion for continuance supported by appropriate

24

medical documentation. Dkt. 165. On September 26, 2012, Plaintiff filed a request for

25

additional time to file his renewed motion for continuance. Dkt. 168. The Court addresses

26

these motions, in turn.

27
28

1

II.

ANALYSIS

2

A.

3

Plaintiff seeks additional time to file his renewed motion for continuance due to his

RENEWED MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE

4

limited access to the prison law library. Good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS

5

Plaintiff’s request. Plaintiff shall have twenty-one (21) days from the date this Order is

6

filed to submit his renewed motion. The Court notes that Plaintiff has had ample time to

7

prepare his motion. Therefore, the Court will not grant any further extensions, absent a

8

showing of exigent circumstances. In the event Plaintiff fails to timely resubmit his

9

motion, the Court will sua sponte schedule this matter for trial, forthwith.

10

B.

11

The Court notes that Defendants’ motions in limine are currently pending, though

MOTIONS IN LIMINE

12

the pretrial conference has not yet been rescheduled. Defendants’ motions in limine are

13

therefore DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to renewal once the pretrial conference and

14

trial date have been rescheduled, at which time the Court will issue a new briefing schedule

15

relating to the motions in limine.

16

C.

17

Discovery is now closed and all that remains is for the case to proceed to trial.

18

Although Plaintiff has indicated his desire to continue the trial, the fact remains that—even

19

with a continuance—this case will eventually be presented to a jury. Plaintiff will be

20

required to present his case to the jury without an attorney. As noted, the fact that Plaintiff

21

is representing himself is no excuse for failing to comply with the rules and procedures of

22

this Court. In addition, Plaintiff should be aware that the failure to abide by those rules

23

and/or comply with the Orders of this Court may result in the dismissal of this action.

24

Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992) (“Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

25

Procedure 41(b), the district court may dismiss an action for failure to comply with any

26

order of the court.”).

27
28

SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE

This Court has contacted the chambers of Magistrate Judge Nandor Vadas, who is
amenable to conducting another settlement conference in this matter. Both Plaintiff and
-2-

1

Defendants have a strong incentive to settle this action on their own accord, rather than

2

expending additional time and resources to preparing this case for trial. Therefore, the

3

parties shall make a good faith effort to resolve this action at the settlement conference

4

before Magistrate Judge Vadas, who will contact the parties shortly regarding the date for

5

the settlement conference.

6

III.

CONCLUSION

7

For the reasons stated above,

8

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

9

1.

Plaintiff’s request for additional time to file his renewed motion for

10

continuance (Dkt. 168) is GRANTED. Plaintiff shall file his renewed motion within

11

twenty-one (21) days of the date this Order is filed. The Court will not grant any further

12

extensions, absent a showing of exigent circumstances.

13
14
15

2.

Defendants’ motions in limine (Dkt. 163) are DENIED without prejudice to

renewal once the pretrial conference and trial date have been rescheduled.
3.

This matter is REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Nandor Vadas for a

16

mandatory settlement conference to take place within ninety (90) days from the date this

17

Order is filed.

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 21, 2013

________________________________
SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG
United States District Judge

20
21
22

G:\PRO-SE\SBA\CR.07\07-4204 - Meneweather - Order Denying MILS and Referring for Settlement Conference.docx

23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-