Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01643/USCOURTS-caed-2_22-cv-01643-4/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 

MIGUEL MARQUEZ VALDIVIA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:22-cv-01643-DC-SCR 

ORDER 

 

On December 9, 2024, District Judge Coggins issued an order adopting in full findings 

and recommendations and referred this matter back to the undersigned for further proceedings. 

ECF No. 27. Pursuant to the provisions of Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, IT IS 

HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 

1. A Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference is set for January 23, 2025 at 10:00 a.m., at 

the United States District Court, 501 I Street, Sacramento, in Courtroom 27. 

2. Not later than fourteen (14) days prior to the Status Conference, the parties shall file status 

reports addressing the following matters: 

a. Service of process; 

b. Possible joinder of additional parties; 

c. Any expected or desired amendment of the pleadings; 

d. Jurisdiction and venue; 

e. Anticipated motions and their scheduling; 

f. The report required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 outlining the proposed 

Case 2:22-cv-01643-DC-SCR Document 28 Filed 12/23/24 Page 1 of 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 

2 

discovery plan and its scheduling, including disclosure of expert witnesses; 

g. Future proceedings, including setting appropriate cut−off dates for discovery and 

law and motion, and the scheduling of a pretrial conference and trial; 

h. Special procedures, if any; 

i. Estimated trial time; 

j. Modification of standard pretrial procedures specified by the rules due to the 

simplicity or complexity of the proceedings; 

k. Whether the case is related to any other cases, including bankruptcy; 

l. Whether a settlement conference should be scheduled; 

m. Whether counsel will stipulate to the magistrate judge assigned to this matter 

acting as settlement judge and waiving disqualification by virtue of his so acting, 

or whether they prefer to have a settlement conference before another judge; 

n. Any other matters that may add to the just and expeditious disposition of this 

matter 

3. The parties are informed that they may, if all consent, have this case tried by a United 

States Magistrate Judge while preserving their right to appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of 

Appeals. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). The form for consent to trial by a magistrate judge is 

attached. Consent forms should be returned to the Clerk of the Court within 30 days of 

this order. 

4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to provide copies of the “Consent to Proceed Before 

United States Magistrate Judge” with this order. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: December 20, 2024 

Case 2:22-cv-01643-DC-SCR Document 28 Filed 12/23/24 Page 2 of 2