Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_00-cv-05817/USCOURTS-caed-1_00-cv-05817-18/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSH THOMAS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

v. )

)

D.L. STEPHENS, et al., )

)

Defendants )

____________________________________)

CV F 00-5817 AWI SMS P

ORDER DENYING TRIAL MOTIONS

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(Documents #180, #184, #186, #187, #192)

This action proceeds on Plaintiff Josh Thomas’ First Amended Complaint filed on

October 30, 2000. Trial was set in this matter for September 12, 2006. In anticipation of trial,

Plaintiff had filed a motion for the jury to view the hobby shop, a motion to modify the pretrial

order, motions in limine, and a motion regarding jury instructions. Defendants had filed

motions in limine. On the eve of trial, the court vacated the September 12, 2006 trial date

because of one of the Defendants’ medical condition. To allow the parties to depose this

Defendant and to allow for a settlement conference, the court did not set a new trial. 

The parties’ trial motions have not yet been ruled on by the court. Pursuant to the

Civil Justice Reform Act, 28 U.S.C. § 471 et seq., this court is not to delay ruling on pending

motions for more than six months. Because the trial motions have been pending for over six

months and the court found good cause to vacate the trial date, the court finds that in the interests

of efficient case management, the parties’ trial motions should be denied without prejudice. If

settlement cannot be reached, the parties may re-notice their trial motions and ask the court to

consider any briefs and evidence already filed.

Case 1:00-cv-05817-LJO-SMS Document 230 Filed 09/26/06 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

Accordingly, the court ORDERS that:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for the jury to view the hobby shop (Document #180) is DENIED

without prejudice;

2. Plaintiff’s motion for modification of the pretrial order (Document #184) is DENIED

without prejudice;

3. The parties’ motions in limine (Documents #186 & #187) are DENIED without

prejudice; and

4. Plaintiff’s motion concerning jury instructions (Document #192) is DENIED without 

prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 26, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:00-cv-05817-LJO-SMS Document 230 Filed 09/26/06 Page 2 of 2