Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-02424/USCOURTS-cand-3_10-cv-02424-18/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIEL C. GARCIA,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF SANTA CLARA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 10-cv-02424-SI 

ORDER SETTING CASE 

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

Daniel C. Garcia, an inmate at Salinas Valley State Prison, filed this pro se civil rights 

action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging numerous claims arising out of his arrest on May 24, 2008 

at the Marriott Hotel in Santa Clara, California. Almost all of the claims have been resolved by 

motions for summary judgment. The claims that remain for adjudication are some of the claims 

against Santa Clara police officer Lange based on his alleged uses of force on plaintiff in the 

police car and at the police station. The court referred the action to the Pro Se Prisoner Mediation 

Program, but the action did not settle and Magistrate Judge Vadas has returned the action to the 

undersigned district judge. In order to move this action toward resolution, the court will set a case 

management conference to, among other things, set a discovery cut-off and set a trial date.

A telephonic case management conference will be held in this case at 11:00 a.m. on 

Tuesday, May 17, 2016. Each party must file and serve a case management statement no later 

than May 4, 2016, in which he: (1) describes specifically the discovery that remains to be done; 

(2) states the number of months needed for discovery; (3) states whether any further motions will 

be filed, and specifically identifies those intended motions; (4) states when that party will be ready 

for trial; (5) provides an estimate of the number of days needed for trial. The parties should be 

prepared to discuss the types of experts they intend to call as witnesses, if any, and any related 

Case 3:10-cv-02424-SI Document 123 Filed 04/12/16 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

discovery issues. Any discovery not listed on the case management statement as discovery 

remaining to be done may be disallowed. The case management conference statements need not be 

jointly prepared. The attorney representing the remaining defendant will initiate the conference 

call and have plaintiff connected on the telephone call before connecting the conference call to the 

court. The attorney should call the courtroom deputy in advance to obtain the courtroom 

telephone number.

Plaintiff is cautioned that he needs to make arrangements to pay witness fees and expert 

witness fees. The expenditure of public funds on behalf of an indigent litigant is proper only when 

authorized by Congress. See United States v. MacCollom, 426 U.S. 317, 321 (1976); Tedder v. 

Odel, 890 F.2d 210, 211 (9th Cir. 1989). The in forma pauperis statute does not authorize the 

district court to waive witness fees or expenses paid to the witnesses, see Dixon v. Ylst, 990 F.2d 

478, 480 (9th Cir. 1992); Tedder, 890 F.2d at 211-12. Therefore, plaintiff must make 

arrangements to pay witness fees and travel expenses for any witnesses he intends to call at trial. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 12, 2016

______________________________________

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:10-cv-02424-SI Document 123 Filed 04/12/16 Page 2 of 2