Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05282/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05282-1/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

MING CHING JIN,

Plaintiff,

v.

W. HENSE, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:03-CV-5282-REC-SMS-P

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR

MANDATORY CONFERENCE RE

SETTLEMENT AND DISCOVERY

(Docs. 47 and 48)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR ISSUANCE

OF SUBPOENA, WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(Doc. 49)

I. Motion for a Mandatory Conference

Plaintiff Ming Ching Jin (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On March 11, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion seeking an order

setting a conference between the parties to discuss settlement or a discovery plan. On March 14,

2005, plaintiff filed a supplement identifying Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) as the authority

supporting his motion. 

Rule 26(f) provides that the parties must confer before a scheduling conference is held or a

scheduling order is due under Rule 16(b). Pursuant to Local Rule 16-240(c)(8), this action is exempt

from the mandatory Rule 16 scheduling conference. The court will schedule a settlement conference

in this action if both plaintiff and defendants believe it will be beneficial. However, the court will

not schedule one unless both sides desire and request one.

/// 

Case 1:03-cv-05282-REC -SMS Document 58 Filed 06/30/05 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

 The standard discovery and scheduling order has been issued in plaintiff’s other pending action, case

number CV-F-04-5894 REC LJO P Jin v. Rodriguez. Therefore, plaintiff should now be generally aware of what the

order will say once it is issued in this case.

2

With respect to discovery, plaintiff is referred to the seventh paragraph of the First

Informational Order, filed on April 28, 2003. As set forth in the order, the court will issue a

discovery order in this action after an answer is filed. Defendants are not required to file an answer

as their initial response to the complaint. Defendants may instead file a motion and have chosen to

do so. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12. If defendants’ motion is denied in full or in part and they thereafter

file an answer, the court will issue an order opening the discovery phase of this litigation.1 

II. Motion for Issuance of Subpoena

On March 21, 2005, plaintiff filed a motion seeking the issuance of a subpoena commanding

Correctional Officer Mosqueda to release of his property. Fed. R. Civ. P. 45. At the time plaintiff

filed the motion, he was at the California Institution for Men in Chino. Plaintiff is now at the

California Men’s Colony in San Luis Obispo. For this reason, plaintiff’s motion shall be denied.

III. Order

Based on the foregoing, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for a conference is DENIED; and

2. Plaintiff’s motion for the issuance of a subpoena is DENIED, without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 30, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05282-REC -SMS Document 58 Filed 06/30/05 Page 2 of 2