Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Ricks v. Kamena, 1:15-cv-00715-DAD-BAM (PC). (2019)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20190425866 Visitors: 6
Filed: Apr. 24, 2019
Latest Update: Apr. 24, 2019
Summary: ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING DEFENDANT'S FAILURE TO FILE A PRETRIAL STATEMENT (ECF No. 55) BARBARA A. McAULIFFE , Magistrate Judge . Plaintiff Scott K. Ricks ("Plaintiff") is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983. This action proceeds against Defendant Kamena for failure to protect and deliberate indifference. This matter is set for a telephonic trial confirmation hearing on May 6, 2019, and a jury tria
More

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING DEFENDANT'S FAILURE TO FILE A PRETRIAL STATEMENT

(ECF No. 55)

Plaintiff Scott K. Ricks ("Plaintiff") is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds against Defendant Kamena for failure to protect and deliberate indifference. This matter is set for a telephonic trial confirmation hearing on May 6, 2019, and a jury trial on July 9, 2019.

On September 26, 2018, the Court issued a second scheduling order directing Plaintiff to file his pretrial statement on or before April 8, 2019, and directing Defendant to file his pretrial statement on or before April 22, 2019. (ECF No. 55.) This matter was then set for a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on March 4, 2019. (ECF No. 57.) The case did not settle, and therefore the deadlines set in the Court's second scheduling order remained in effect. (ECF No. 61.)

The deadline for Plaintiff's pretrial statement and motion for attendance of incarcerated witnesses expired, and Plaintiff failed to comply with the Court's scheduling order or to otherwise communicate with the Court. Accordingly, on April 18, 2019, the Court issued an order for Plaintiff to show cause why this action should not be dismissed for failure to comply with a court order and for failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 62.) Plaintiff's response is due on or before May 6, 2019. (Id.)

On April 22, 2019, in lieu of filing a pretrial statement, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss due to Plaintiff's failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 63.) As Defendant acknowledges, the Court's April 18, 2019 order to show cause did not expressly discharge Defendant's obligation to file a pretrial statement by April 22, 2019. (Id. at 2, n.1.) Defendant argues that he will be "extraordinarily prejudiced" if he is required to file a pretrial statement, given Plaintiff's failure to do so. (Id. at 1.)

The Court disagrees. While Defendant may be prejudiced to some degree in his trial preparation, Plaintiff's failure to file a pretrial statement does not completely preclude him from preparing and filing his own pretrial statement, to the best of his abilities. As Defendant has not requested an extension of time to file his pretrial statement, and the May 6, 2019 telephonic trial confirmation hearing remains on calendar, the Court finds it would be beneficial for Defendant to submit the required pretrial statement.

Accordingly, Defendant is HEREBY ORDERED to show cause by written response regarding Defendant's failure to obey the Court's scheduling order, or to submit his pretrial statement. Defendant's response or pretrial statement is due within seven (7) days from the date of service of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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