Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01987/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-01987-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID GILLIAM, )

) 2:07-cv-01987-GEB-JKM

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) ORDER CONTINUING STATUS

) (PRETRIAL SCHEDULING)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF) CONFERENCE; FEDERAL RULE OF

CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION; ) CIVIL PROCEDURE 4(m) NOTICE

JOHN PAPPENFUS; SUSAN FLORES; )

KATHY MENDOZA POWERS; and DOES )

1 - 20, )

)

Defendants. )

)

On January 10, 2008, Plaintiff and Defendant State of

California Department of Corrections (“CDCR”) filed a stipulation to

continue the scheduling conference currently set for January 22, 2008

because “there has been no ruling as yet on Defendant CDCR’s Motion to

Dismiss . . . and no other defendants have appeared as yet.” On

January 11, 2008, an order issued granting CDCR’s motion to dismiss. 

Therefore, the scheduling conference set for January 22, 2008 is

continued to March 3, 2008, at 9:00 a.m. A further joint status

Case 2:07-cv-01987-GEB -KJM Document 17 Filed 01/14/08 Page 1 of 3
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

report shall be filed no later than fourteen days prior to the

scheduling conference.

Plaintiff is hereby notified that this action may be

dismissed without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m)

if the remaining defendants are not served within the time prescribed

by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). To avoid dismissal, a proof

of service shall be filed for each of those defendants no later than

January 21, 2008. If Plaintiff believes he has good cause to justify

extension of Rule 4(m)’s 120-day service period for the remaining

defendants, he shall file a declaration no later than January 21,

2008, showing good cause why the action should not be dismissed

without prejudice.

Further, on January 7, 2008, Plaintiff filed a response to

the Order to Show Cause (“OSC”) issued on November 21, 2007. 

Plaintiff’s counsel’s response to the OSC indicates she was too busy

and therefore “overlooked” the deadline for filing a status report

that had been set in this action. “It is incumbent upon an attorney

practicing in [any court] to [learn] what is expected by the court 

. . . and the consequences inherent in noncompliance.” AguilarEscobar v. Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 136 F.3d 1240, 1244

(9th Cir. 1998). “It is . . . no excuse for failing to comply with [a

filing requirement set forth in a Rule 16 order] that attorneys labor

under the pressure of deadlines. Time is a precious luxury which, if

not properly budgeted, can be a powerful foe.” Id. “The cogs of the

wheel of justice move much more smoothly when attorneys who practice

in this court follow the rules of practice and procedure [that have

been] carefully developed and adopted.” Id. 

Case 2:07-cv-01987-GEB -KJM Document 17 Filed 01/14/08 Page 2 of 3
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

3

No sanction is imposed at this time; however, Plaintiff’s

counsel is warned that a monetary sanction could be imposed if she

fails to comply with a Rule 16 order again. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 11, 2008

 

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:07-cv-01987-GEB -KJM Document 17 Filed 01/14/08 Page 3 of 3