Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01461/USCOURTS-caed-1_21-cv-01461-49/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ADAM JAY STONE,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. PFEIFFER, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:21-cv-01461-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR PRETRIAL CONFERENCE

(ECF No. 186)

Plaintiff Adam Jay Stone is proceeding pro se in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding Plaintiff’s excessive force claim against Defendants 

B. Gonzales, G. Morales, K. Gonzales, and Anderson in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The

On December 5, 2024, the Court issued the trial scheduling order setting this case for jury 

trial on April 29, 2025. (ECF No. 185.) 

On December 9, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion for a pretrial conference, self-dated 

December 3, 2024. (ECF No. 186.) Plaintiff requests a pretrial conference to discuss discovery 

issues, the possibility of amending the complaint, admission and exclusion of evidence, 

settlement offers, identity of witnesses of documents, subpoenas, and any other issues. (Id.) 

Plaintiff’s request shall be denied. As an initial matter, Plaintiff is advised that the 

discovery and amendment deadlines have expired and any requests related thereto will not now 

be entertained prior to trial. The Court’s trial scheduling order set forth all of the applicable 

Case 1:21-cv-01461-SAB Document 187 Filed 12/12/24 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

requirements and deadlines in order for the case to proceed to jury trial on April 29, 2025. In 

addition, as stated in the Court’s December 5, 2024, order, the Court may vacate the pretrial and 

motions in limine hearings if deemed not necessary. (ECF No. 185 at 12.) Thus, at this juncture, 

Plaintiff is advised to review the Court’s trial scheduling order and focus his efforts on complying 

with all of the necessary pretrial requirements. Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that 

Plaintiff’s motion for a pretrial conference is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 12, 2024 

STANLEY A. BOONE

United States Magistrate Judge

 

Case 1:21-cv-01461-SAB Document 187 Filed 12/12/24 Page 2 of 2