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)

Download PDF
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-

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?