Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01625/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01625-24/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FEDERICO HERNANDEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. HERNANDEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE No. 1:13-cv-01625-MJS (PC)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

EXTENSION OF TIME

(ECF No. 113)

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The action proceeds against Defendants 

Hernandez, Zambrano, Clark, Rodriguez, and Martin on Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment 

excessive force claim. The Court’s June 19, 2015 pretrial order set a July 21, 2015 

deadline for the parties to file “a non-argumentative, brief statement of the case 

suitable for reading to the jury at the outset of jury selection.” (ECF No. 92.) Trial is set 

for August 11, 2015. (ECF No. 86.)

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s July 21, 2015 request for an extension of time to 

file his statement of the case. Plaintiff’s counsel states that, due to their recent 

appointment and inability to communicate thus far with Plaintiff, they have not had an 

opportunity to confer with Plaintiff in order to produce a “maximally effective” statement 

of the case.

Case 1:13-cv-01625-MJS Document 128 Filed 07/22/15 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

The statement of the case is not intended to be a “maximally effective” 

statement of either party’s case, but rather a very brief, neutral orientation to the 

nature of the case for the jury venire. As stated in the pretrial order, the Court will draft 

its own statement of the case, regardless of the parties’ submissions. The Court will 

present its intended statement for the parties’ review on the morning of trial. 

Given the short amount of time prior to trial and the Court’s intent to draft its own 

statement, Plaintiff’s motion for an extension of time to file a statement of the case is 

HEREBY DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 22, 2015 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01625-MJS Document 128 Filed 07/22/15 Page 2 of 2