Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01086/USCOURTS-caed-1_15-cv-01086-15/pdf.json

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

LAW OFFICE OF KEN I. KARAN

Ken I. Karan, Esq., California State Bar No. 204843

2907 Shelter Island Drive, Ste. 105-215

San Diego, CA 92106

(760) 420-5488

Fax (866) 841-5420

kkaran.law@gmail.com

Attorney for Plaintiff Vance Utley

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

VANCE UTLEY,

Plaintiff,

vs.

C.O. ACEVEDO, et al., 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO.: 1:15-cv-01086-DAD-SAB

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO MODIFY 

SCHEDULE AND CONTINUE TRIAL DATE

Complaint Filed: July 14, 2015

Plaintiff’s recitals: 

1. Plaintiff, currently incarcerated, claims injury to his eye as part of his damages in the above 

captioned matter.

2. Based on a review of the records by Plaintiff’s expert, a comprehensive examination to 

determine the extent of his injury by a qualified ophthalmologist has not been performed. The 

lack of such an examination deprives Plaintiff of the ability to evaluate his damages and 

present evidence at trial.

3. Plaintiff has been discussing the need for a comprehensive left eye exam with CDCR since

April 2016.

4. Plaintiff now concludes that a judicial remedy by way of a writ of habeas corpus will be 

required. The time to litigate such a remedy is estimated to take six months, which includes the 

Case 1:15-cv-01086-DAD-SAB Document 59 Filed 08/19/16 Page 1 of 3
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

time to exhaust administrative remedies, obtain a decision on the writ, and, depending on the 

decision, complete expert discovery.

5. The current trial date is November 15, 2016. That date does not provide the time needed to 

resolve the dispute over the eye exam, obtain the exam, and complete expert discovery.

The parties herein, by and through counsel, stipulate as follows:

6. The trial date of November 15, 2016, and related dates should be continued as follows:

Pre-trial Conference: January 3, 2017

Trial: February 14, 2017

7. The expert discovery schedule should be modified to permit Plaintiff to amend his expert 

designation with the results of a comprehensive left eye examination, and to allow Defendants 

time to conduct discovery of the expert’s opinions.

8. Defendants do not agree with Plaintiff’s contention that he has not already been given a 

comprehensive ophthalmological examination but nonetheless will agree to the requested 

scheduled modifications concerning the pretrial conference, the trial date, and the deadline to 

supplement expert disclosures concerning Plaintiff’s alleged injuries to his left eye only. 

So stipulated.

Dated: August 16, 2016 /s/Ken I. Karan

Ken I. Karan, Esq. 

Attorney for Plaintiff Vance Utley

Dated: August 16, 2016 /s/David A. Carrasco

David A. Carrasco, Esq. 

Attorney for Defendants Acevedo and 

Wimer

///

Case 1:15-cv-01086-DAD-SAB Document 59 Filed 08/19/16 Page 2 of 3
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

ORDER

The court has reviewed the stipulation of the parties seeking to modify the schedule in this 

action. The court will agree to modify that schedule in order to provide the parties additional time to 

complete expert discovery and prepare for the final pretrial conference and trial.1 Accordingly, the 

scheduling order is modified as follows;

Pre-trial Conference is continued to January 3, 2017, at 3:30 p.m. in Courtroom 5.

Jury Trial is continued to February 14, 2017, at 8:30 a.m. in Courtroom 5.

Furthermore, the expert discovery schedule is modified to permit plaintiff to supplement his 

expert disclosure with the results of any comprehensive left eye examination he may undergo, 

and to allow defendants time to conduct discovery with respect to any supplemental opinion 

rendered by plaintiff’s expert. The parties will complete expert discovery within 30 days of 

plaintiff’s receipt of any examination results, but in no event later than December 12, 2016.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 18, 2016 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

1 The court is confused by the reference to a potential petition for writ of habeas corpus by plaintiff’s 

counsel in the parties’ stipulation. The undersigned cannot fathom how pursuit of habeas relief of some 

kind could be related to the conducting of discovery in this civil rights action and therefore does not find 

good cause for the requested continuance based upon such references.

Case 1:15-cv-01086-DAD-SAB Document 59 Filed 08/19/16 Page 3 of 3