Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01053/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01053-2/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

ESTATE OF JOSE HERRERA, et al., 

Plaintiffs,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:16-cv-01053-DAD-SKO (PC)

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ REQUEST FOR 

CLARIFICATION and GRANTING 

WITHDRAWAL OF DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO 

DISMISS FILED ON OCTOBER 11, 2016

(Docs. 6, 11)

TWENTY-ONE DAY DEADLINE 

Plaintiffs, the Estate of Jose Herrera, Jose A. Herrera, Martha Herrera, and Jose Herrera, 

named individually and as the Successors in Interest of Jose E. Herrera, who was a state prisoner 

at the time of his death, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. (Doc. 1.) This 

action involves past conditions of confinement at Kern Valley State Prison California 

Correctional Institution in Tehachapi. 

On October 6, 2016, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and scheduled it for hearing 

before the District Judge. (Doc. 6.) Although Jose Herrera was not incarcerated when this action 

was filed, on October 12, 2016, the District Judge directed the Clerk of Court to amend the docket 

in this matter to reflect the designation of this case as a prisoner case by adding the suffix “PC” to 

the case number, ordered that all pending hearing dates be vacated, and referred the action to the 

undersigned for further handling. (Doc. 7.) Defendants thereafter filed a duplicative motion to 

dismiss and scheduled it for hearing before the undersigned, but did not withdraw their original 

Case 1:16-cv-01053-DAD-SKO Document 12 Filed 10/31/16 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

motion to dismiss. (Doc. 8.) 

On October 21, 2016, the Court issued an order vacating the hearing date on Defendants’ 

second motion to dismiss and directed that the action proceed under Local Rule 230(l). (Doc. 

10.) On October 26, 2016, Defendants filed a request for clarification indicating their 

understanding that Local Rule 230(l) would not apply to this case since none of the Plaintiffs are 

incarcerated and are all represented by counsel. (Doc. 11.) Defendants indicated that, if this case 

is to proceed under Local Rule 230(l), they will withdraw the motion to dismiss filed on October 

11, 2016 (Doc. 6) and agree to proceed on the motion to dismiss filed on October 14, 2016 (Doc. 

8). (Id.) 

District courts have broad discretion to manage the course of litigation and their calendars. 

Hunt v. County of Orange, 672 F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir. 2012); see also U.S. v. Batiste, 868 F.2d 

1089, 1091 n.4 (9th Cir. 1989). Notwithstanding Plaintiffs un-incarcerated and represented 

status, the Court has exercised its discretion and determined that this case will be best managed 

by proceeding under Local Rule 230(l).

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Local Rule 230(l) shall apply to this case;

2. Defendants’ withdrawal of their motion to dismiss, filed on October 11, 2016,

(Doc. 6) is GRANTED;

3. Within twenty-one (21) days of the date of service of this order, Plaintiffs shall file 

either an opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss filed on October 14, 2016,

or a statement of non-opposition and a first amended complaint; and 

4. If Plaintiffs file an opposition, Defendants shall file any their within seven (7) 

days. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 31, 2016 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-01053-DAD-SKO Document 12 Filed 10/31/16 Page 2 of 2