Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01924/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01924-11/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IREN ANDERSON,

Plaintiff,

v.

RON D. HANSEN, et al., 

Defendants. 

________________________________/

CASE No. 1:09-cv-01924-LJO-MJS (PC)

ORDER DENYING, WITHOUT PREJUDICE,

PLAINTIFF’S MISCELLANEOUS 

MOTIONS 

(ECF No. 57, 59)

Plaintiff Iren Anderson is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action filed November 2, 2009 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

(Compl., ECF No. 1.) This matter proceeds on Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint

(Second Am. Compl., ECF No. 19) alleging claims of excessive force against Defendant

Hansen, failure to protect against Defendant Hartley, and failure to intervene against

Defendant Lewis. (Order Finding Cognizable Claims, ECF No. 20.) Defendants Hansen,

Hartley, and Lewis have answered. (Answers, ECF Nos. 25, 43.) Discovery in this

matter closed November 1, 2012. (Order Am. Discovery and Scheduling Order, ECF

No. 52, at § III(D).) The dispositive motion deadline is January 10, 2013. (Id.) 

Pending before the Court are Plaintiff’s first at-issue memorandum and trial

readiness motion to set the matter for trial (Mot. Set. Trial, ECF No. 57), and motion for

subpoena duces tecum for Defendant Hartley to produce video recording at trial. (Mot.

-1-

Case 1:09-cv-01924-MJS Document 61 Filed 01/07/13 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

Subpoena, ECF No. 59.) 

Plaintiff’s instant motions are premature and denied on that basis. The time

within which to file dispositive motions has not expired. The Court will set a further

schedule for this litigation and provide for trial submittals and motions in due course.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(b). 

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s first at-issue memorandum

and trial readiness motion to set the matter for trial (ECF No. 57) and motion for

subpoena duces tecum for Defendant Hartley to produce video recording at trial (ECF

No. 59) are DENIED without prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 7, 2013 /s/Michael J. Seng 

ci4d6 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

-2-

Case 1:09-cv-01924-MJS Document 61 Filed 01/07/13 Page 2 of 2