Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00095/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cv-00095-32/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

KELVIN X. SINGLETON, 

Plaintiff,

v.

HEDGEPATH, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:08-cv-00095-AWI-GSA-PC 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

REQUEST FOR TELEPHONIC STATUS

CONFERENCE

(Doc. 135.)

Kelvin X. Singleton (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 3, 2011, Plaintiff

filed a request for a telephonic status conference to be scheduled in this action, pursuant to Local

Rule 240. (Doc. 135.) Defendants have not filed an opposition.

Plaintiff requests a telephonic conference to discuss with the Court and Defendants the

“amendment of pleadings; the formulation and simplification of the issues, including elimination

of frivolous claims and defenses; the disposition of pending motions; and whether to hold further

discovery conferences.” Id. Plaintiff also contends that many of the motions pending before the

Court can be resolved during a telephonic conference. Id.

Plaintiff is directed to review the First Informational Order issued by the Court in this

action on January 8, 2008. (Doc. 5). Because Plaintiff is incarcerated and proceeds pro se, all

pre-trial motions will be submitted to the Court without a hearing. Id. at ¶9; L.R. 230(l). In

1

Case 1:08-cv-00095-EPG Document 180 Filed 05/06/11 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

addition, this action is exempt from Local Rule 240's requirement of a mandatory scheduling

conference. L.R. 240(c). Plaintiff has not presented sufficient reasons for the Court to order a

telephonic conference at this juncture. It appears, at this stage of the proceedings, that the issues

raised by Plaintiff are best resolved sua sponte by the Court, by motion submitted to the Court, or 

by the parties without court intervention. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion shall be denied.

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for a

telephonic status conference is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: May 6, 2011 /s/ Gary S. Austin 

6i0kij UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:08-cv-00095-EPG Document 180 Filed 05/06/11 Page 2 of 2