Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00441/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-00441-50/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

VERNON WAYNE McNEAL,

Plaintiff,

v.

LOCKIE, ERVIN, CHATHAM, and 

VAN LEER,

Defendants.

No. 2:05-cv-00441-GEB-EFB

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ 

REQUEST TO MODIFY THE SECOND 

SUPPLEMENT TO PRETRIAL ORDER

On June 18, 2015, Defendants filed an “Objection to the 

Court’s Second Supplement to Pretrial Order,” in which they 

request the order “be modified” to state “that the remaining 

claims asserted against the Defendants at trial are as follows: 

1) Excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment (against 

Defendants Leckie and Ervin); [and] 2) Failure to intervene to 

prevent the use of excessive force (against Defendants Chatham 

and Van Leer).” (Defs.’ Obj. 2:13-19, ECF No. 221.) In essence, 

Defendants seek the removal of Defendant Chatham from the first 

claim, i.e., excessive force in violation of the Eighth 

Amendment, arguing the Magistrate Judge’s January 18, 2013 

findings and recommendations on certain Defendants’ summary 

judgment motion adjudicated that claim in Defendant Chatham’s 

favor. (Id. at 1:27-2:12.)

Case 2:05-cv-00441-TLN-EFB Document 225 Filed 07/07/15 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

Defendants neither address the legal standard that 

applies to their request to modify a final pretrial order, nor 

demonstrate that it has been met. See Galdamez v. Potter, 415 

F.3d 1015, 1020 (9th Cir. 2005) (“[The moving party] ha[s] the 

burden of showing that an amendment to the pretrial order was 

necessary to prevent ‘manifest injustice.’” (citing Fed. R. Civ. 

P. 16(e))). The Magistrate Judge’s January 18, 2013 findings and 

recommendations, which were adopted in full by the undersigned 

judge on July 8, 2013, deny Defendants’ summary judgment motion 

as to Defendant Chatham altogether; they do not adjudicate a 

particular claim alleged against Defendant Chatham in his favor. 

(See January 18, 2013 F.&R. 15:21-16:2, ECF No. 145; Order 

Adopting F.&R. 2:10-13, ECF No. 158.) Therefore, Defendant’s 

request to modify the Second Supplement to Pretrial Order is 

DENIED. 

Dated: July 7, 2015

Case 2:05-cv-00441-TLN-EFB Document 225 Filed 07/07/15 Page 2 of 2