Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00363/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-00363-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other 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

Nathaniel Smith,

Plaintiff,

v.

City of Stockton; Officer 

Mayer, Officer Robin 

Harrison, Officer Michael 

Perez, and former Chief of 

Police Blair Ulring, in

their individual capacities; 

and Chief of Police Eric 

Jones, in his official 

capacity,

Defendants.

No. 2:15-cv-00363-GEB-AC

ORDER CONTINUING STATUS 

(PRETRIAL SCHEDULING) ORDER

Plaintiff states in the Joint Status Report (“JSR”) 

filed May 4, 2015, as follows:

Plaintiff anticipates amending the 

complaint to add Chief Jones in his 

individual capacity (currently named only in 

his official capacity), and the parties are 

currently meeting and conferring regarding

former Chief Ulring’s status in the case, 

which may result in amendment to the 

pleadings. The parties propose that such 

amendment take place after the Court reaches 

a decision regarding the pending motion to 

dismiss.1

(JSR 2:4-8, ECF No. 17.)

 

1 The referenced dismissal motion was referred to the bankruptcy court 

under 28 U.S.C. ' 157(a) on May 6, 2015. (See ECF No. 18.)

Case 2:15-cv-00363-KJM-AC Document 20 Filed 05/13/15 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

These statements fail to comply with Plaintiff’s 

obligation under Rule 16 to provide meaningful information on 

when the referenced amendments would be sought. 

Parties anticipating possible 

amendments. . . have an unflagging obligation 

to alert the Rule 16 scheduling judge of the 

. . . timing of such anticipated amendments 

in their status reports so that the judge can 

consider whether such amendments may properly 

be sought solely under the Rule 15(a) 

standard, and whether structuring discovery 

pertinent to the parties’ decision whether to 

amend is feasible.

Jackson v. Laureate, Inc., 186 F.R.D. 605, 608 (E.D. Cal. 1999) 

(internal quotation marks omitted).

Therefore, the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference 

set for May 18, 2015, is continued to June 8, 2015, at 9:00 a.m. 

A further joint status report shall be filed no later than 

fourteen (14) days prior to the Status Conference, in which 

Plaintiff shall address the anticipated timing of the referenced 

amendments. Plaintiff shall also address in the further joint 

status report his efforts to prosecute this action against 

Defendant Mayer, who has not yet appeared in this action. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 12, 2015

Case 2:15-cv-00363-KJM-AC Document 20 Filed 05/13/15 Page 2 of 2