Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06070/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06070-9/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 The other two defendants named in this action, Smith and Gonzales, were dismissed on January 27, 2005. 1

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WAYNE JEROME ROBERTSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

LT. R. D. VANDT, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:03-CV-06070-OWW-LJO-P

ORDER ADDRESSING STATUS OF THIS

ACTION, AND REQUIRING THE PARTIES

TO NOTIFY THE COURT WITHIN THIRTY

DAYS WHETHER THE WOULD LIKE A

SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE SET IN THIS

MATTER

Plaintiff Wayne Jerome Robertson (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action is proceeding

against defendants Decker, Farris, Walters, Vaughn, Gabaldon, Arvizu, Vanzandt, Lomonaco, and

McDaniel on plaintiff’s complaint filed August 8, 2003, for allegedly violating the Eighth

Amendment by acting with deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s safety. 

1

Pursuant to the discovery and scheduling order filed on November 10, 2005, the deadline for

defendant Decker to file a pretrial dispositive motion was September 14, 2006. Pursuant to the

court’s order, any request for an extension of a deadline must be filed on or before the expiration of

the deadline. Defendant Decker neither filed a dispositive motion nor filed a motion seeking an

extension of the deadline. Likewise, defendants Farris, Walters, Vaughn, and Gabaldon did not file

a pretrial dispositive motion by their deadline of December 7, 2005, and did not file a motion for an

extension of time. There is third scheduling order in place for defendants Arvizu, Vanzandt,

Case 1:03-cv-06070-LJO -GSA Document 107 Filed 09/25/06 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

Lomonaco, and McDaniel, and the deadline for them to file a pretrial dispositive motion is March

8, 2007. It is unclear whether defendants Arvizu, Vanzandt, Lomonaco, and McDaniel plan to file

a pretrial dispositive motion. Unless defendants Arvizu, Vanzandt, Lomonaco, and McDaniel notify

the court that they do not intend to do so and are ready for this matter to be set for jury trial, trial will

not be set until the expiration of their motion deadline on March 8, 2007, and resolution of their

motion, if one is filed.

In the event that the parties believe a settlement conference might be beneficial in resolving

this case, the parties shall notify the court within thirty days whether they would like the court to set

a settlement conference in this matter. The court will set a settlement conference before a Magistrate

Judge only if plaintiff and one or more of the defendants desire one.

Accordingly, within thirty (30) days from the date of service of this order, plaintiff and

defendants Decker, Farris, Walters, Vaughn, Gabaldon, Arvizu, Vanzandt, Lomonaco, and McDaniel

shall notify the court whether they would like a settlement conference set in this matter.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 22, 2006 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06070-LJO -GSA Document 107 Filed 09/25/06 Page 2 of 2