Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

BUENROSTRO v. SAHOTA, CV-08-00636-ROS. (2012)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20120604466 Visitors: 8
Filed: May 31, 2012
Latest Update: May 31, 2012
Summary: ORDER ROSLYN O. SILVER, District Judge. This Court being in trial in another matter, the trial scheduled for June 26, 2012 must be reset for September 17, 2012. Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Restraining Order based on his fear prison officials will retaliate against him due to his litigation-related activities. The individuals allegedly threatening retaliation against Plaintiff are not named defendants in this case and, therefore, the Court does not have the authority to order those indivi
More

ORDER

ROSLYN O. SILVER, District Judge.

This Court being in trial in another matter, the trial scheduled for June 26, 2012 must be reset for September 17, 2012.

Plaintiff has filed a Motion for Restraining Order based on his fear prison officials will retaliate against him due to his litigation-related activities. The individuals allegedly threatening retaliation against Plaintiff are not named defendants in this case and, therefore, the Court does not have the authority to order those individuals to take any action. The request for an injunction will be denied.

Plaintiff has requested the appointment of counsel. In light of his ability to articulate his claims on his own behalf and the simplicity of the remaining issues, the request will be denied.

Plaintiff has filed a variety of requests regarding writs to secure the attendance at trial of Rafael Quiroz, Railen J. Wheeler, and Phil M. Lund. At the last status hearing, defense counsel represented he would attempt to arrange for these witnesses to testify via audio or video. Plaintiff's motions regarding these witnesses will be denied, and defense counsel will be instructed to file a statement indicating whether he has arranged for these witnesses to testify remotely. If defense counsel has not been able to arrange for these witnesses to testify remotely, defense counsel should indicate whether he will arrange for these witnesses to appear in person at the trial.

Plaintiff has filed a request for extension of time to file additional motions. Plaintiff has not demonstrated the specific motions he wishes to file or why those motions are necessary. This case is ready for trial and there does not appear to be any need for Plaintiff to file additional motions. The request will be denied.

Plaintiff has filed a motion seeking permission to introduce Defendants' character evidence. The Court will determine the admissibility of such evidence at trial.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED the Motion to Postpone the Trial Date (Doc. 82) is GRANTED. The jury trial set for June 26, 2012 is VACATED and RESET for September 17, 2012 in the Fresno Division. A final pretrial conference will be held at 9:00 a.m. on September 17, 2012 prior to jury selection. Estimated length of trial is two days.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED no later than August 17, 2012 the parties shall file the Joint Proposed Pretrial Order using the form available on the Court's website.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction (Doc. 83) is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the motions (Docs. 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 84, 85, and 86) regarding Plaintiff's witnesses are DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED no later than August 17, 2012 defense counsel shall file a statement containing the information outlined above regarding Plaintiff's proposed witnesses.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Motion for Extension of Time (Doc. 87) is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 69) is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED the Motion to Permit Plaintiff to Introduce Defendants' Character Evidence (Doc. 70) is DENIED.

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