Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01797/USCOURTS-caed-2_04-cv-01797-6/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MELVIN RAY BRUMMETT JR.,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-04-1797 GEB JFM P

vs.

CLAIR TESKE, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1983. By order filed November 14, 2006, this court, inter alia, granted plaintiff’s

September 15, 2006 request for extension of time and granted plaintiff an additional period of

thirty days in which to file and serve an opposition to the motion for summary judgment filed by

defendants Loraine Blankenship, Amber Johnson and the Shasta County Jail on September 1,

2006. On November 15, 2006, said defendants filed a motion for reconsideration of that order. 

Defendants Blankenship, Johnson and Shasta County Jail correctly observe that plaintiff filed his

opposition on September 27, 2006. Good cause appearing, defendants’ motion for

reconsideration will be granted. Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time will be granted and his

/////

/////

Case 2:04-cv-01797-GEB -JFM Document 87 Filed 12/08/06 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

 In the November 14, 2006 order, the court gave defendants Teske and Miller an 1

additional period of fifteen days in which to file and serve a motion for summary judgment. Said

defendants have not filed a motion for summary judgment. 

 Plaintiff filed his pretrial statement on November 15, 2006. Following resolution of the 2

pending motion for summary judgment, the court will determine whether plaintiff will be

required to file a new pretrial statement.

2

September 27, 2006 opposition deemed timely filed. No further briefing shall be filed in

connection with said motion for summary judgment.1

On November 2, 2006, plaintiff filed a request for eight blank subpoena forms. It

is not clear from the request or the record before the court why plaintiff needs said forms. 

Accordingly, the request will be denied without prejudice. 

Finally, due to the pendency of the September 1, 2006 motion for summary

judgment, and good cause appearing, the dates for filing pretrial statements, for pretrial

conference, and for jury trial will be vacated. Said dates may be reset, as appropriate, following

disposition of the pending summary judgment motion.2

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ November 15, 2006 motion for reconsideration is granted.

2. Plaintiff's September 15, 2006 motion for an extension of time is granted.

3. Plaintiff’s September 27, 2006 opposition to the September 1, 2006 motion for

summary judgment of defendants Blankenship, Johnson and Shasta County Jail is deemed timely

filed.

4. No further briefing shall be filed in connection with the September 1, 2006

motion for summary judgment of defendants Blankenship, Johnson and Shasta County Jail.

5. Plaintiff’s November 2, 2006 request for subpoena forms is denied without

prejudice.

6. The parties are relieved of the obligation to file pretrial statements until further

order of court.

Case 2:04-cv-01797-GEB -JFM Document 87 Filed 12/08/06 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

3

7. The pretrial conference set for December 22, 2006 before the undersigned is

vacated.

8. The jury trial set for March 13, 2007 before the Honorable Garland E. Burrell,

Jr. is vacated.

DATED: December 7, 2006.

12

brum1797.o

Case 2:04-cv-01797-GEB -JFM Document 87 Filed 12/08/06 Page 3 of 3