Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05801/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05801-2/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

JESUS CEBALLOS,

Plaintiff,

v.

AARON FOUCH,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 03 5801 OWW SMS P

ORDER DENYING IN PART AND

GRANTING IN PART REQUEST FOR

MODIFICATION OF SCHEDULING ORDER

(Doc. 33.) 

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO

PROVIDE OPPOSING COUNSEL WITH

TELEPHONE ON OR BEFORE SEPTEMBER

29, 2005

 Jesus Ceballos (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in

this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On July 15, 2005, this Court issued a Second Scheduling Order setting the matter for a

Telephonic Trial Confirmation Hearing on October 13, 2005, at 10:00 a.m. and a Motion in

Limine Hearing on November 2, 2005, at 10:00 a.m. before the undersigned and Trial on

December 6, 2005, at 9:00 a.m. before District Court Judge Wanger.

On July 18, 2005, Defendants moved the Court to modify the Court’s Scheduling Order

with regard to the Court’s requirement that Defendants arrange for Plaintiff’s the participation in

the Telephonic Trial Confirmation Hearing and Motion in Limine Hearing. Defendants state that

Case 1:03-cv-05801-OWW -SMS Document 35 Filed 08/02/05 Page 1 of 3
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

they do not have a current telephone number for Plaintiff as he has been released from state

custody and that given Plaintiff’s release, he should be required to make his own arrangements

for participation in any court proceedings. 

Defendant’s request is DENIED to the extent Counsel is seeking to be relieved of the

obligation to initiate a conference call. Appearance by telephone is a courtesy extended to the

parties by the court. Thus, should Counsel for Defendant wish to appear in person, rather than

initiate a conference call with Plaintiff, she may do so by notifying Courtroom Deputy Harriet

Herman and Plaintiff on or before November 3, 2005. 

To the extent Defendant is requesting relief from obtaining Plaintiff’s telephone number

and ensuring that Plaintiff is available by phone on the date of the hearings, Defendant’s request

is GRANTED. The address noted by Defendants is also the address on record with the Court for

this action. However, no telephone number has been provided by Plaintiff. Thus, Plaintiff will

be required to provide Defendants with a telephone number where he can be reached on October

13, 2005 and November 3, 2005, at 10:00 a.m., for the hearings specified above. It is incumbent

on Plaintiff to ensure that he is available at the telephone number provided on the dates and times

of the telephonic hearings. Should Plaintiff fail to make himself available by phone at the

number provided, the case will be dismissed as a sanction. If Plaintiff is notified by Counsel for

Defendant that she will be making her appearance in person, Plaintiff must himself call (559)

498-7325 at 10:00 a.m. on both October 13, 2005, and November 3, 2005, to participate in the

telephonic hearing, or notify opposing Counsel and the Courtroom Deputy if he himself wishes

to appear in person. 

The Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. The Request for modification of the Scheduling Order is DENIED to the extent

Defendants request to be relieved of their obligation to initiate a conference call;

2. The Request for modification of the Scheduling Order is GRANTED to the extent

Defendants are required to obtain Plaintiff’s telephone number and ensure his

availability on the date of the telephonic hearings;

3. Plaintiff is ORDERED to submit to Counsel for Defendant a telephone number

Case 1:03-cv-05801-OWW -SMS Document 35 Filed 08/02/05 Page 2 of 3
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

3

where he can be reached on October 13, 2005, and November 3,2005, at 10:00

a.m. on or before SEPTEMBER 29, 2005. 

Plaintiff is forewarned that his failure to provide a phone number to Defendant’s Counsel

prior to the hearings or is unavailable at the number listed on the date and time of the hearings,

the instant action will be dismissed for failure to prosecute. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 1, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05801-OWW -SMS Document 35 Filed 08/02/05 Page 3 of 3