Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01712/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01712-6/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DEVON BRADFORD,

Plaintiff,

v.

RANDY DAVIS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:12-cv-01712-AWI-SAB

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS

ECF NOS. 21, 22

On March 28, 2013, the Court issued an Order Setting Mandatory Scheduling Conference 

setting a scheduling conference in this action on July 2, 2013 at 9:15 a.m. (ECF No. 18.) The 

order further stated that:

A Joint Scheduling Report, carefully prepared and executed by all 

counsel/pro se parties, shall be electronically filed in CM/ECF, one 

(1) full week prior to the Scheduling Conference...

(Order Setting Mandatory Scheduling Conference 2:11-13.) The order further described the 

content of the Joint Scheduling Report.

On June 25, 2013, one week prior to the scheduling conference, Defendants Randy 

Davis, John Corrico, Doug Ridenour, Jacob Weiser and Paul MacDonald (“Defendants”) timely 

filed a scheduling conference statement. (ECF No. 19.) Defendants informed the court that:

Due to a failure on the part of plaintiff to timely communicate with 

defense counsel, or to timely participate in the drafting of a joint 

scheduling report, the parties have failed to create such a report in 

accordance with the Order of the Court.

Case 1:12-cv-01712-AWI-SAB Document 23 Filed 06/27/13 Page 1 of 4
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

(Defendants’ Scheduling Conference Statement 1:18-20.) Defendant also attached letters two 

letters sent to Plaintiff on May 24, 2013 and June 11, 2013 inquiring about the Joint Scheduling 

Report.

On June 26, 2013, Plaintiff Devon Bradford (“Plaintiff”) filed an Ex Parte Application 

and Order Extending Time to Plead and a Notice of Motion for Continuance. (ECF Nos. 21, 22.) 

Plaintiff sought an extension of time to file a Joint Scheduling Report because:

[Plaintiff] recently had no mailing address for 3 months due to 

eviction. All mail goes out to another city where plaintiff does not 

live or are able to get my mail in a timely manner. Didn’t receive 

any orders from the court until June 23, 2013 when it had been 

mailed on March 28, 2013.

(Ex Parte Application and Order Extending Time to Plead 1:18-21.) Plaintiff requested an 

additional thirty (30) days to prepare a Joint Scheduling Report and a continuance of the July 2, 

2013 scheduling conference.

Plaintiff has not demonstrated good cause justifying an extension of time or a 

continuance of the scheduling conference. Plaintiff’s failure to participate in the preparation of 

the Joint Scheduling Report and failure to receive this Court’s orders stems from his failure to 

comply with this Court’s Local Rules. Local Rule 182(f) states:

(f) Change of Address. Each appearing attorney and pro se 

party is under a continuing duty to notify the Clerk and all other 

parties of any change of address or telephone number of the 

attorney or the pro se party. Absent such notice, service of 

documents at the prior address of the attorney or pro se party shall 

be fully effective.

Plaintiff was obligated to inform the Court and Defendants about his eviction and provide 

the Court and Defendants with a valid current address and a valid telephone number. At the very 

least, Plaintiff should have informed the Court that his housing situation was in flux and taken 

steps to monitor the status of his lawsuit to ensure that he did not miss any important deadlines.

The Court will deny Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time and Plaintiff’s request for 

a continuance. The July 2, 2013 scheduling conference will remain on calendar as previously 

scheduled. The Court will further order Plaintiff to prepare and file any objections he has to the 

dates proposed by Defendants in their scheduling conference statement by noon on Monday, 

Case 1:12-cv-01712-AWI-SAB Document 23 Filed 06/27/13 Page 2 of 4
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

July 1, 2013. However, because Plaintiff’s failure to participate in the preparation of a Joint 

Scheduling Report is unexcused, the Court will not deviate from the dates proposed by 

Defendant absent extraordinary good cause. Plaintiff is forewarned that if he fails to appear 

at the July 2, 2013 scheduling conference or otherwise fails to comply with this order, 

Plaintiff may be sanctioned for failure to obey a court order and failure to prosecute. 

Sanctions may include monetary sanctions to reimburse Defendants for any costs 

associated with any delays caused by Plaintiff’s actions and/or dismissal of this action.

Inexplicably, Plaintiff still has not provided the Court with an updated address. The 

address that appears in Plaintiff’s recent Ex Parte Application and Order Extending Time to 

Plead and Notice of Motion for Continuance is identical to the address appearing on Plaintiff’s 

filings throughout this litigation: 601 W Granger Ave Apt# 149 / Modesto, CA 95350. This 

address is also identical to the address used by the Court to serve its orders on Plaintiff. 

Irrespective of whether this address is still valid in light of Plaintiff’s statement that he was 

evicted, Local Rule 182(f) provides that service of any documents at the last known address is 

valid until Plaintiff informs the Court of his changed address.

However, Plaintiff did, for the first time, include a telephone number in his most recent 

filings. The Court will order Defendants’ counsel to attempt to contact Plaintiff at this number 

and inform Plaintiff that (1) Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to prepare a Joint 

Scheduling Report has been denied, and (2) Plaintiff’s request for a continuance has been denied.

Based upon the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time to prepare a Joint Scheduling Report is 

DENIED (ECF No. 21);

2. Plaintiff’s request for a continuance of the July 2, 2013 scheduling conference is 

DENIED;

3. The July 2, 2013 scheduling conference will occur as scheduled at 9:15 a.m. in 

Courtroom 9 (SAB);

4. If Plaintiff has any objections to the dates proposed by Defendants in their June 

25, 2013 scheduling conference statements, Plaintiff shall file his objections in 

Case 1:12-cv-01712-AWI-SAB Document 23 Filed 06/27/13 Page 3 of 4
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

4

writing by noon on Monday, July 1, 2013;

5. As soon as reasonably practicable, Defendants’ counsel shall attempt to contact 

Plaintiff at the phone number provided in his most recent filings ((209) 496-1321) 

and inform Plaintiff that his request for an extension and his request for a 

continuance have been denied; and

6. Plaintiff is forewarned that failure to fully comply with this order may result in 

the imposition of sanctions.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 27, 2013 _ _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01712-AWI-SAB Document 23 Filed 06/27/13 Page 4 of 4