Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

TURNER v. SALINAS, 2:10-cv-1848 MCE KJN P. (2012)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20120510891 Visitors: 11
Filed: May 08, 2012
Latest Update: May 08, 2012
Summary: ORDER KENDALL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding through counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. On April 20, 2012, plaintiff filed a motion to modify the scheduling order due to scheduling conflicts. Plaintiff states that defense counsel does not oppose this request. Good cause appearing, plaintiff's motion to modify the scheduling order is granted. On May 7, 2012, plaintiff himself filed a motion for injunctive relief. Because pla
More

ORDER

KENDALL J. NEWMAN, Magistrate Judge

Plaintiff is a state prisoner, proceeding through counsel, with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On April 20, 2012, plaintiff filed a motion to modify the scheduling order due to scheduling conflicts. Plaintiff states that defense counsel does not oppose this request. Good cause appearing, plaintiff's motion to modify the scheduling order is granted.

On May 7, 2012, plaintiff himself filed a motion for injunctive relief. Because plaintiff is represented by counsel, all communication with the court must be through his counsel. For this reason, plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief is disregarded.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The pretrial conference set for April 27, 2012, is vacated; the pretrial conference is reset for October 18, 2012, at 9 a.m., in Courtroom 7 before the Honorable Morrison C. England; the parties shall file their Final Pretrial Conference Statement not later than October 4, 2012;

2. The jury trial set for August 27, 2012, is vacated; the jury trial is reset for November 26, 2012, at 9:00 a.m., in Courtroom 7 before the Honorable Morrison C. England.

3. Within forty-five days of the date of this order, the parties shall inform the court whether a settlement conference should be set.

4. Plaintiff's motion for injunctive relief (Dkt. No. 96) is disregarded.

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