Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_99-cv-06613/USCOURTS-caed-1_99-cv-06613-7/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT M. PARKER,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. HUTTON,

Defendants.

 /

CV F 99 6613 OWW SMS P

ORDER VACATING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS ISSUED JULY 15,

2005 (Doc. 75.) 

ORDER SETTING HEARING DATES 

Telephonic Trial Confirmation

Hearing: March 14, 2006, at 10:00 a.m in

Courtroom 4 (SMS)

Jury Trial: May 16, 2006, at 9:00 a.m. in

Courtroom 2 (OWW) 

 Robert M. Parker (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On August 23, 2005, this Court issued an Order vacating the Telephonic Trail

Confirmation Hearing and Trial dates on the basis that Plaintiff had not complied with a Court

order by submitting a Pretrial Statement in compliance with the Local Rules. 

On August 26, 2005, and September 6, 2005, Plaintiff submitted an untimely Pretrial

Statement. Plaintiff also filed Objections to the Findings and Recommendations on September

12, 2005. Plaintiff argues that the Court should deem his Pretrial Statements timely because of

the mailbox rule. According to the Pretrial Statement, Plaintiff signed and therefore, submitted

to the Court for filing, his Pretrial Statement on August 19, 2005. However, contrary to

Plaintiff’s belief that the time began when he received the Order on August 8, 2005, the Court

Order clearly stated that the Pretrial Statement was due no later than fifteen days from the date of

Case 1:99-cv-06613-OWW -SMS Document 90 Filed 10/12/05 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

service of the Order. The Order was served on August 3, 2005, and thus, Plaintiff’s submission

of the Pretrial Order on August 19, 2005, the date he signed the document, is untimely. In any

event, because the Pretrial Order is in compliance with the Local Rule and there has been no

Objection to the untimely submission by Defendants, the Court will VACATE the Findings and

Recommendations and reset the matter for trial. Plaintiff is forewarned, however, that any

further delay or rules violation (be they Civil Rules or Local Rules), will result in a

Recommendation that the case be dismissed and his case may be dismissed. The Court notes that

this is the second issuance of Findings and Recommendations for Plaintiff’s failure to comply. 

The Court makes clear to Plaintiff that no further violations of the rules resulting in further delay

of this case will be tolerated. 

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS: 

1. The Findings and Recommendations issued on August 23, 2005, are VACATED;

2. A Telephonic Trial Confirmation Hearing will be HELD before the undersigned

on March 14, 2006, at 10:00 a.m.;

3. Counsel for Defendants is required to arrange for the participation of Plaintiff in

the Telephonic Trial Confirmation Hearing and to initiate the telephonic hearing

at (559) 498-7325;

4. A jury trial will be held before the Honorable Judge Oliver W. Wanger on May

16, 2006, at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 2.

5. If Plaintiff wishes to obtain the attendance of unincarcerated witnesses who

refuse to testify voluntarily, Plaintiff must submit the money orders, as described

in subsection 4 of the Second Scheduling Order issued on April 4, 2005, to the

Court on or before March 14, 2006.

A Pretrial Order will issue separately. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 11, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:99-cv-06613-OWW -SMS Document 90 Filed 10/12/05 Page 2 of 2