Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00804/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00804-3/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 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JIMMY ST. CLAIR, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

STAN SCHLACHTER, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:13-cv-00804-KJM-DAD PC 

ORDER 

Plaintiff Jimmy St. Clair, a prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights 

action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 30, 2015, the court issued an order 

adopting the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations with clarifications and denying 

plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment without prejudice. Order, ECF No. 37. In the same 

order the court instructed the parties to meet and confer and file a joint statement of their views 

“whether plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment should be renewed or, instead whether 

this action should proceed to pretrial conference and jury trial.” Id. at 3. 

The parties filed their joint statement on April 27, 2015. ECF No. 39. Plaintiff 

reported his intent to file a renewed motion for summary judgment because he believes defendant 

cannot show a genuine dispute as to any fact material to defendant’s liability. Id. at 2. Defendant 

requested the case proceed to trial and reported his intent at minimum to submit a declaration 

Case 2:13-cv-00804-KJM-DB Document 42 Filed 05/19/15 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

denying statements in plaintiff’s previous declaration. Id. In the joint report defendant also 

denied all of plaintiff’s allegations “relating to the alleged assault.” Id. 

The court therefore orders as follows: 

(1) Having reviewed the parties’ joint statement and in partial reconsideration of 

its order issued March 30, 2015, the court has determined that plaintiff’s claims and the status of 

the case warrant appointment of counsel. The court refers this case to the court’s ADR and Pro 

Bono Coordinator, Sujean Park, for identification of counsel to represent plaintiff and appear at 

the status conference set below. 

(2) The case is set for status before the undersigned on June 25, 2015, at 2:30 p.m. 

By seven days before the status conference, the parties may file a new joint statement providing 

an update on any of the information contained in the statement filed April 27, 2015. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: May 18, 2015. 

Case 2:13-cv-00804-KJM-DB Document 42 Filed 05/19/15 Page 2 of 2