Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_99-cv-06613/USCOURTS-caed-1_99-cv-06613-5/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

ROBERT M. PARKER,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. HUTTON, et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 99 6613 OWW SMS P

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STRIKE

PLAINTIFF’S PRETRIAL STATEMENT (Doc.

76.) 

ORDER DIRECTING PLAINTIFF TO FILE

PRE-TRIAL STATEMENT IN ACCORDANCE

WITH LOCAL RULE 16-281 (b) 

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK OF COURT TO

SEND PLAINTIFF A COPY OF LOCAL RULE

16-281.

 Robert M. Parker (“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. This matter is set for Jury Trial on

September 20, 2005, at 9:00 a.m. before the Honorable Judge Oliver W. Wanger, and for a

Telephonic Trial Confirmation Hearing on August 25, 2000, at 9:00 a.m. before the undersigned. 

on April 4, 2005, this Court issued a Second Scheduling Order setting forth deadlines for the

filing of pretrial statements by both parties. On June 2, 2005, the Court extended the deadline for

Plaintiff’s filing of his pretrial statement from May 18, 2005, to July 11, 2005. However,

Plaintiff did not file the pretrial statement. Thus, on July 15, 2004, the Court issued Findings and

Recommendations that the action be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute. Plaintiff filed

a pretrial statement on July 18, 2005. 

On July 19, 2005, Defendants moved to strike the pretrial statement from the record

alleging that it is not in compliance with the Local Rules and was untimely submitted. 

Case 1:99-cv-06613-OWW -SMS Document 80 Filed 08/03/05 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 1

Plaintiff shall disregard 16-281(a) as that section of the rule does not apply in this case. 

2

The Court has reviewed the pretrial statement and finds Defendant’s motion is justified. 

Plaintiff does not provide the Court with the information needed to formulate a pretrial order and

as required by the Local Rules. In addition, Plaintiff merely lists numerous paragraphs listing

“facts” but does indicate whether the facts are disputed, the relief sought, witnesses, if any,

evidence or exhibits he expects to product at trial or any other items required by the Local Rules. 

Accordingly, because the pretrial statement is deficient, the Court will GRANT Defendant’s

Motion to Strike and require Plaintiff to submit a pretrial statement that conforms with the rules

within fifteen (15) days of the date of service of this Order. 

The Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. Defendant’s Motion is GRANTED: 

2. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to STRIKE plaintiff’s pretrial statement from

the record (Doc. 76.);

3. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to send Plaintiff a copy of Local Rule 16-281;

4. Plaintiff SHALL file a pretrial statement that conforms with Local Rule 16-281(b)

is DUE within FIFTEEN days of the date of service of this Order.1

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 2, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:99-cv-06613-OWW -SMS Document 80 Filed 08/03/05 Page 2 of 2