Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_17-cv-01691/USCOURTS-caed-1_17-cv-01691-5/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

FRANCISCO SIERRA,

Plaintiff,

v.

M.E. SPEARMAN, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:17-cv-01691-DAD-EPG

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO CONTINUE 

INITIAL SCHEDULING CONFERENCE 

(ECF NO. 42)

Francisco Sierra (“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 7, 2020, the Court set an initial 

scheduling conference for April 15, 2020 and ordered the parties to exchange initial disclosures 

and to file scheduling conference statements. (ECF No. 35.) The order required the parties to 

exchange initial disclosures by March 16, 2020 and file their scheduling conferences statements 

by April 1, 2020. 

On April 8, 2020, in light of the global COVID-19 pandemic, Defendants moved to 

postpone the scheduling conference or alternatively issue a scheduling and discovery order 

without the conference. (ECF No. 42.) Defendants inform the Court that the California 

Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) is limiting its inmates’ movement in 

response to COVID-19. (ECF No. 42-1.) Conducting a scheduling conference requires additional 

close interaction among inmates and staff, thus reducing the effectiveness of CDCR’s pandemic 

Case 1:17-cv-01691-ADA-EPG Document 43 Filed 04/09/20 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

control measures. (Id.)

The Court finds good cause to vacate the scheduling conference for the reasons set forth in 

Defendants’ motion. The Court will issue a scheduling order without the benefit of a scheduling 

conference in these circumstances. 

However, the Court has not yet received Plaintiff’s scheduling conference statement, 

which was due on April 1, 2020. (ECF No. 35). The Court notes that Defendants timely filed 

their statement. (ECF No. 40).

The Court thus orders Plaintiff to file his scheduling conference statement no later than 

thirty days from today. After the Court receives Plaintiff’s scheduling conference statement, the 

Court will issue a scheduling order, which will open discovery and set additional dates for the 

case.1 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants’ Motion to Continue Initial Scheduling Conference (ECF No. 42) is 

GRANTED.

2. The initial scheduling conference set for April 15, 2020 is hereby VACATED.

3. Plaintiff shall file his scheduling conference stated within thirty days of the date of this 

Order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 9, 2020 /s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

1 The Court may also make additional discovery orders based on the information provided in the scheduling 

conference statements.

Case 1:17-cv-01691-ADA-EPG Document 43 Filed 04/09/20 Page 2 of 2