Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01269/USCOURTS-casd-3_05-cv-01269-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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 - 05cv1269 WQH (LSP)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL CHEIKINE,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 05cv1269 WQH (LSP)

ORDER

vs.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants.

HAYES, Judge:

On June 22, 2005, Plaintiff initiated this action by filing the Complaint (Doc. # 1). One June

6, 2007, United States Magistrate Judge Leo S. Papas issued an order continuing pretrial conference

and related dates (Doc. # 25). The order provided that the proposed pretrial order would be due on

October 15, 2007 and that the final pretrial conference would be held on October 22, 2007. On March

19, 2008, this Court issued an order which stated that “[s]ince June 6, 2007, nothing has happened in

this case, with the exception of Defendant the State of California’s filing of a witness list on October

1, 2007.” (Doc. # 27). The order required Plaintiff to “show cause as to why this case should not be

dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute.” Id. In response to this Court’s order to show

cause, Plaintiff’s attorney, James E. Dunn, submitted a declaration, where he attests that pretrial

conference scheduled for October 22, 2007 was vacated due to the fire emergency, and the case is

ready to move forward to trial (Doc. # 28). On July 1, 2008, this Court issued an order requiring the

parties to jointly file a proposed pretrial order on or before July 21, 2008 (Doc. # 30). On July 21,

2008, Plaintiff filed a document entitled “Plaintiff’s Pretrial Disclosures,” pursuant to Rule 26(a)(3)

Case 3:05-cv-01269-WQH-LSP Document 33 Filed 08/11/08 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 - 05cv1269 WQH (LSP)

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (Doc. # 31). On August 5, 2008, Defendants filed objections

to “Plaintiff’s Pretrial Disclosures,” which stated that “Defendants object to Plaintiff’s Pretrial

Disclosures in their entirety inasmuch as the disclosures were not timely filed and served on or before

October 1, 2007, consistent with the Court’s scheduling order filed June 6, 2007” (Doc. # 32). 

The Court concludes that Plaintiff has failed to comply with the Court’s July 1, 2008 order

because the document entitled “Plaintiff’s Pretrial Disclosures,” filed by Plaintiff in response to the

July 1, 2008 order, does not comply with Local Civil Rule 16.1(6) governing pretrial orders (Doc. #

25). 

In light of the foregoing, it is hereby ordered that Plaintiff submit a joint proposed pretrial

order in accordance with Local Civil Rule 16.1 on or before Tuesday, September 2, 2008. After

Plaintiff files the joint proposed pretrial order, the Court will schedule a pretrial conference date. If

Plaintiff does not comply with this order, this action will be subject to dismissal without prejudice.

DATED: August 11, 2008

WILLIAM Q. HAYES

United States District Judge

Case 3:05-cv-01269-WQH-LSP Document 33 Filed 08/11/08 Page 2 of 2