Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

NAILING v. FOSTERER, 2:09-CV-2475-MCE-CMK. (2012)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20120809924 Visitors: 6
Filed: Aug. 08, 2012
Latest Update: Aug. 08, 2012
Summary: ORDER CRAIG M. KELLISON, Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff, a former prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. 1 An initial status/scheduling conference was held in this matter on June 27, 2012, at 10:00 a.m. before the undersigned. Plaintiff did not appear. 2 Daniel Ikeri, Esq., appeared for defendant(s). Upon consideration of the status reports on file in this action, discussion with the parties, and good cause appearing therefor, the court will,
More

ORDER

CRAIG M. KELLISON, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff, a former prisoner proceeding pro se, brings this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.1 An initial status/scheduling conference was held in this matter on June 27, 2012, at 10:00 a.m. before the undersigned. Plaintiff did not appear.2 Daniel Ikeri, Esq., appeared for defendant(s).

Upon consideration of the status reports on file in this action, discussion with the parties, and good cause appearing therefor, the court will, by this order, set a schedule pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b).

1. The parties are exempted from the requirements outlined in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1) and (f);

2. Discovery shall be completed, and all motions pertaining to discovery shall be noticed to be heard, by December 14, 2012;

3. All other pre-trial motions, including dispositive motions, shall be noticed to be heard by February 9, 2013; and

4. The pre-trial conference and trial dates will be set by separate order at a later time.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


1. When this case was filed, plaintiff was incarcerated and case management in this matter was governed by the court's local rules for cases filed by state prisoners. Upon plaintiff's release from incarceration, these local rules no longer applied. This matter now proceeds under the local rules as a pro se civil case.
2. Plaintiff is advised that, in the future, he may appear by telephone. It is possible that plaintiff was not aware of his ability to appear telephonically.
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