Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

White v. Smyers, 2:12-cv-2868 MCE AC P. (2016)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20160914b93 Visitors: 9
Filed: Sep. 13, 2016
Latest Update: Sep. 13, 2016
Summary: ORDER ALLISON CLAIRE , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff is a state prisoner who proceeds pro se in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. By letter written August 28, 2016, plaintiff informed the court he was transferred to California State Prison-Richard J. Donovan (CSP-RJD). ECF No. 188. Plaintiff also informs the court that he anticipates being released from prison in approximately 18 weeks. ECF No. 194 at 2. Presently pending is plaintiff's motion for a court order dir
More

ORDER

Plaintiff is a state prisoner who proceeds pro se in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. By letter written August 28, 2016, plaintiff informed the court he was transferred to California State Prison-Richard J. Donovan (CSP-RJD). ECF No. 188. Plaintiff also informs the court that he anticipates being released from prison in approximately 18 weeks. ECF No. 194 at 2. Presently pending is plaintiff's motion for a court order directing CDCR to deliver to plaintiff all of his legal materials. ECF No. 194. By this order, the court requests the assistance of the Deputy California Attorney General assigned this case to facilitate the delivery of plaintiff's legal materials,1 and extends recently-imposed deadlines.

On August 23, 2016, this court issued an order directing defendants to schedule the final session of plaintiff's deposition. See ECF No. 189. The court set a schedule for arranging and conducting plaintiff's deposition and for so informing the court. Id. This order sets new guidelines and dates.

Also on August 23, 2016, this court issued an order and findings and recommendations which denied plaintiff's requests to stay this action and recommended the denial of plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunctive relief. See ECF No. 190. The court set a 14-day period within which the parties could file objections to the findings and recommendations. Id. This order extends that deadline to 14 days after the Clerk of Court, on September 8, 2016, re-served the findings and recommendations on plaintiff at his current address. Because the findings and recommendations are very detailed concerning the factual matters addressed therein, and clearly sets forth the applicable legal standards, plaintiff does not require access to his legal materials to prepare and file objections.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. On or before September 22, 2016, any party may file and serve objections to the findings and recommendations filed August 23, 2016 (ECF No. 190); no further extensions of time will be granted.

2. Plaintiff's motion filed September 9, 2016, ECF No. 194, is granted as follows.

3. Deputy California Attorney General Ms. Hammond is requested to do the following:

a. Within seven (7) days after the filing date of this order: (i) contact the CSP-RJD Litigation Coordinator and ascertain when plaintiff will be in possession of all his legal materials; and (ii) file and serve a statement so informing the court.

b. Within fourteen (14) days after the filing date of this order: (i) ascertain from each defense counsel the earliest available dates when all attorneys will be available to conduct and conclude plaintiff's deposition;2 (ii) schedule with the CSP-RJD Litigation Coordinator an agreed-upon date to conduct and conclude plaintiff's deposition, when plaintiff will be in possession of all his legal materials and appropriate arrangements can be made to accommodate plaintiff's physical limitations and pain symptoms; and (iii) file and serve a statement so informing plaintiff and the court.

SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. Defendants are represented by three separate attorneys. Defendant Miranda is represented by Mr. Thomas Cregger; defendant Pomazal is represented by Mr. Noah Blechman; and defendants Lankford, Rofling, Mayes, Schmidt, Lee and Swingle are now represented by Deputy Attorney General Ms. Kelli Marie Hammond.
2. As earlier ruled by this court, although plaintiff's deposition should be scheduled for an entire day, the period of time for questioning and answering is limited to a total of five-and-one-half hours, as previously estimated by defense counsel. See ECF No. 189 at 2-3 (quoting ECF No. 153 at 5-8).
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer