Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01053/USCOURTS-caed-1_16-cv-01053-1/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

ESTATE OF JOSE HERRERA, et al., 

Plaintiffs,

v.

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:16-cv-01053-DAD-SKO (PC)

ORDER DIRECTING THIS ACTION TO 

PROCEED UNDER LOCAL RULE 230(l); 

STRIKING DEFENDANTS’ FIRST MOTION TO 

DISMISS; AND VACATING THE HEARING ON 

DEFENDANTS’ SECOND MOTION TO DISMISS 

(Docs. 5, 6, 7, 8)

Plaintiffs, the Estate of Jose Herrera, Jose A. Herrera, Martha Herrera and Jose Herrera, 

named individually and as the Successors in Interest of Jose E. Herrera, a state prisoner at the 

time of his death, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. (Doc. 1.) This action 

involves past conditions of confinement at Kern Valley State Prison California Correctional 

Institution in Tehachapi. 

On October 6, 2016, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and set it for hearing before the 

District Judge. (Doc. 6.) Although Jose Herrera was not incarcerated when this action was filed, 

on October 12, 2016, the Court directed the Clerk of Court to amend the docket in this matter to 

reflect the designation of this case as a prisoner case by adding the suffix “PC” to the case 

number, vacated all pending hearing dates, and ordered that all pending motions be re-noticed for 

hearing before the undersigned magistrate judge. (Doc. 7.) Defendants thereafter filed a 

duplicative motion to dismiss set for hearing before the undersigned, but did not withdraw their 

original motion to dismiss. (Doc. 8.) 

Case 1:16-cv-01053-DAD-SKO Document 10 Filed 10/21/16 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

District courts have broad discretion to manage the course of litigation and their calendars. 

Hunt v. County of Orange, 672 F.3d 606, 616 (9th Cir. 2012); see also U.S. v. Batiste, 868 F.2d 

1089, 1091 n.4 (9th Cir. 1989). 

In light of the above, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Local Rule 230(l) shall apply to this case;

2. The hearing on Defendants’ motion to dismiss, filed on October 14, 2016, is

vacated;

3. Within five (5) days of the date of service of this order, Defendants shall withdraw 

one of their motions to dismiss (either Doc. 6 or Doc. 8) via CM/ECF;

4. Within twenty-six (26) days of the date of service of this order, Plaintiffs shall file 

either an opposition to Defendants’ remaining motion to dismiss, or a statement of 

non-opposition and a first amended complaint; and 

5. If Plaintiffs file an opposition, Defendants shall file their reply within seven (7) 

days. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 21, 2016 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:16-cv-01053-DAD-SKO Document 10 Filed 10/21/16 Page 2 of 2