Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02697/USCOURTS-caed-2_02-cv-02697-9/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IRVIN TERRELL TATUM, et al., 

Plaintiffs, No. CIV S-02-2697 DFL EFB P

vs.

STEVE VANCE, et al., ORDER AND

FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS

Defendants.

 /

By order filed November 3, 2005, plaintiffs were directed to file pretrial

statements on or before July 28, 2006. On August 2, 2006, plaintiff Tatum filed his pretrial

statement. On September 13, 2006, the court issued an order granting plaintiff Sherrill an

extension of time until September 29, 2006 to file his pretrial statement. Plaintiff Sherrill has not

filed his pretrial statement nor responded to the court’s order. The court will therefore

recommend that this action be dismissed as to him for failure to prosecute or to comply with

court orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b), 16(f); Local Rule 11-110. The case will proceed as to

plaintiff Tatum.

On August 11, 2006, defendants filed a request for an extension of time to file a

pretrial statement. The court granted that request by court order filed September 13, 2006, and

directed defendants to file and serve their pretrial statement no later than October 13, 2006. 

Case 2:02-cv-02697-JAM-EFB Document 65 Filed 11/16/06 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

2

Defendants have yet to file a pretrial statement. Good cause appearing, defendants will be given

one further opportunity to file a pretrial statement. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants shall file and serve a pretrial statement not later than November

30, 2006. 

2. Pretrial conference is continued to December 15, 2006, on the papers before

the magistrate judge. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that plaintiff

Sherrill be dismissed from this action due to his failure to file a pretrial statement. See Fed. R.

Civ. P. 41(b), 16(f); Local Rule 11-110.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District

Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written

objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned

“Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Failure to file objections

within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court’s order. Turner v.

Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: November 15, 2006.

Case 2:02-cv-02697-JAM-EFB Document 65 Filed 11/16/06 Page 2 of 2