Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05595/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05595-34/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

ANDREW LOPEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

OFFICER YALE,

Defendant.

 /

CASE NO. 1:04-cv-05595-DLB PC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO STRIKE DEFENDANT’S PRE-TRIAL

STATEMENT 

(Doc. 216)

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 on plaintiff’s complaint, filed January 29,

2004, against defendant Yale (“defendant”) for acting with deliberate indifference to plaintiff’s

serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment in withholding approved soft shoes

sent during plaintiff’s transfer from High Desert State Prison (HDSP) to Corcoran State Prison (CSP)

on February 15, 2001. This matter is set for a jury trial before the undersigned on June 17, 2008.

A telephonic trial confirmation hearing was held in this action on March 28, 2008.

Defendant filed his pre-trial statement on March 25, 2008, beyond the March 10, 2008 deadline

imposed by the court. (Doc. 206). On April 15, 2008, plaintiff filed a motion to strike defendant’s

pre-trial statement as untimely. (Doc. 216). On April 17, 2008, defendant filed an opposition. (Doc.

220). 

///

///

Case 1:04-cv-05595-DLB Document 221 Filed 04/18/08 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

Defendant incorrectly cites FRCP 6(b)(2) as authority for the court to extend time after the expiration of a 1

specified time, where failure to act was due to excusable neglect and where good cause appears. FRCP 6(b)(1)(B)

provides for such relief.

2

Defendant requests that the court accept the pre-trial statement filed March 25, 2008, per

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 6(b)(2). In support of his opposition, defendant filed evidence

1

demonstrating excusable neglect. (Doc. 216, pp5-6). Defendant further states that plaintiff has not

shown any prejudicial effect as a result of the late filing to support his motion.

Good cause appearing, defendant’s request for an extension of time to file the pre-trial

statement is HEREBY GRANTED. Plaintiff’s motion for to strike defendant’s pre-trial statement

is HEREBY DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: April 18, 2008 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3c0h UNI j8 TED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05595-DLB Document 221 Filed 04/18/08 Page 2 of 2