Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01933/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01933-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DIANTAE HOGAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF SACRAMENTO, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-1933-KJM-KJN PS

ORDER

On February 3, 2016, the assigned district judge, Judge Mueller, issued a pretrial 

scheduling order providing, inter alia, that all discovery shall be completed by October 14, 2016; 

dispositive motions shall be heard no later than November 18, 2016; and setting a final pretrial 

conference and trial before Judge Mueller on April 21, 2017, and June 5, 2017, respectively. 

(ECF No. 11.)

Thereafter, on August 25, 2016, Judge Mueller granted plaintiff’s counsel’s motion to 

withdraw, and referred the action to the undersigned as the assigned magistrate judge for future 

proceedings under Local Rule 302(c)(21). (ECF No. 16.)

Because Judge Mueller’s August 25, 2016 order did not vacate the operative scheduling 

order, and neither party requested a continuance of the scheduling order, the time for discovery 

and dispositive motion practice has now passed. The only operative dates that remain are for the 

Case 2:15-cv-01933-KJM-KJN Document 17 Filed 12/15/16 Page 1 of 3
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

2

final pretrial conference and trial, which remain set before Judge Mueller.

Nevertheless, because neither plaintiff nor defendants have made any filing with the court 

since plaintiff’s counsel was permitted to withdraw, it is unclear whether plaintiff intends to 

proceed to trial without counsel, whether plaintiff is attempt to locate counsel for purposes of 

trial, and/or whether the parties are amenable to conducting a settlement conference prior to trial.

Thus, the court finds it beneficial to conduct a status conference in this matter. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. A status conference is set for Thursday January 19, 2017, at 10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 

No. 25 before the undersigned.

2. No later than January 12, 2017, the parties shall file a joint status report addressing the 

following issues:

(a) Whether plaintiff intends to continue prosecuting this case

(b) If plaintiff intends to continue prosecuting this case, whether plaintiff intends to 

proceed to trial with or without counsel, and if with counsel, the status of 

plaintiff’s efforts to obtain counsel

(c) Whether the parties are amenable to a settlement conference before trial, either 

conducted by the undersigned (with an appropriate waiver of any disqualification 

by virtue of acting as the settlement judge and the assigned magistrate judge) or 

before another magistrate judge

(d) Whether or not the dates of the final pretrial conference and trial before Judge 

Mueller should potentially be continued.

3. Failure to meaningfully participate in preparation of the joint status report and/or 

failure to appear at the status conference may result in the imposition of sanctions, 

including dismissal of the action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b).

4. The parties are cautioned that unless and until the dates of the final pretrial conference 

and trial are continued by a subsequent court order, they should consider those dates 

firm. 

////

Case 2:15-cv-01933-KJM-KJN Document 17 Filed 12/15/16 Page 2 of 3
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

3

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: December 15, 2016

 

Case 2:15-cv-01933-KJM-KJN Document 17 Filed 12/15/16 Page 3 of 3