Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00312/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00312-21/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

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff Hussein Ali Kietty is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the parties have consented to the 

jurisdiction of the United States Magistrate Judge. Local Rule 302.

On November 28, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion entitled “Motion Filing For Investigative 

Claim Under Witness Testimony and Relief Vacating Trial Preparation Under Attorney General for 

Department of Corrections Continuance With Investigation.” Plaintiff seeks to a continuance of the 

trial dates set forth in District Judge Drozd’s second scheduling order issued October 3, 2016. Judge 

Drozd’s second scheduling order was vacated on November 22, 2016, when the action was referred 

and reassigned to the undersigned

A hearing was held on this matter on November 29, 2016 at the Trial Scheduling Conference. 

Hussein Ali Kietty appeared telephonically in pro per and Monica Anderson, Supervising Deputy 

Attorney General, also appeared telephonically on behalf of the defendants. 

HUSSEIN ALI KIETTY,

 Plaintiff,

v.

A. WALKER, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:13-cv-00312-SAB (PC)

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR FILING INVESTIGATIVE CLAIM 

UNDER WITNESS TESTIMONY AND 

VACATING TRIAL PREPARATION

[ECF No. 84]

Case 1:13-cv-00312-SAB Document 87 Filed 11/30/16 Page 1 of 2
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

In light of the Plaintiff comments at the hearing, the Court found no need for the Defendants to 

file an opposition. For the reasons stated on the record, the Plaintiff motion is denied as MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 30, 2016 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00312-SAB Document 87 Filed 11/30/16 Page 2 of 2