Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_99-cv-06133/USCOURTS-caed-1_99-cv-06133-1/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

TERRANCE COVINGTON,

Plaintiff,

v.

J.W. FAIRMAN et. al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. CV-F-99-6133 REC SMS P

ORDER DISREGARDING MOTION FOR

CLARIFICATION OF SCHEDULING ORDER

(Doc. 217)

Terrance Covington (“plaintiff”)is a stateprisoner proceeding pro se in this civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

On March 2, 2003, this Court issued a Second Scheduling Order setting forth relevant trial

and telephonic trial confirmation hearing dates. In addition, the Order set out various deadlines for

the submission of Pretrial Statements by the parties. 

On April 20, 2005, Plaintiff filed a pleading titled “Motion for Clarification of Second

Scheduling Order.” Plaintiff indicates that he does not understand why he must file a Pretrial

Statement when Local Rule 16-240(c) provides that persons proceeding in propria persona in a Civil

Rights Action are exempted from the mandatory scheduling order requirement. 

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b), the Magistrate Judge is required to enter

a scheduling order. Local Rule 16-240(c) exempts actions, such as the instant action, from the

mandatory aspect of this rule. This means, however, that the Court is not required to enter a

Scheduling Oder but may do so at its option. As noted above, the Court exercised its discretion to

Case 1:99-cv-06133-OWW -SMS Document 222 Filed 05/03/05 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

enter a Scheduling Order and set forth deadlines for the filing of pretrial statements by the parties.

According to the Court docket, plaintiff submitted his Pretrial Statement on April 29, 2005. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion for Clarification is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 3, 2005 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

icido3 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:99-cv-06133-OWW -SMS Document 222 Filed 05/03/05 Page 2 of 2