Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05712/USCOURTS-caed-1_02-cv-05712-0/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

MARK ANTHONY FARQUHAR,

Plaintiff,

v.

CAIN,

Defendant.

 /

CASE NO. 1:02-CV-5712-OWW-LJO-P

ORDER DENYING MOTIONS FOR

SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE, AND FOR

COURT ORDER RELATING TO LAW

LIBRARY ACCESS

(Docs. 85, 86, and 87)

ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE 

PRETRIAL STATEMENT WITHIN TWO

WEEKS 

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK’S OFFICE TO

PROVIDE PLAINTIFF WITH COPY OF

LOCAL RULE 16-281, SECOND

SCHEDULING ORDER, AND DOCKET IN

THIS ACTION

ORDER DIRECTING CLERK’S OFFICE TO

SEND LITIGATION OFFICE COPY OF THIS

ORDER AND SECOND SCHEDULING

ORDER

Plaintiff Mark Anthony Farquhar (“plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in

forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter is set for

telephonic trial confirmation hearing on January 12, 2006, and jury trial on February 28, 2006.

Pursuant to the court’s order of August 11, 2005, plaintiff’s pretrial statement was due on or before

December 3, 2005. To date, plaintiff has not filed his pretrial statement or requested an extension

of time to comply with the court’s order. However, on November 17, 2005, plaintiff filed a notice

of change of address to Deuel Vocational Institution (DVI). In the notice, plaintiff, who is back in

Case 1:02-cv-05712-NEW Document 88 Filed 12/15/05 Page 1 of 3
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

custody following a parole violation, stated he had not been able to go to the law library and had

been unable to obtain the court’s address or defendant’s counsel’s address. Plaintiff also complained

that following his parole, defendant’s counsel continued to serve him with documents at the

California Medical Facility despite being served with several changes of address. On December 12,

2005, plaintiff filed a motion seeking a settlement conference and a declaration of his inability to

access photocopies, paper, books, and other items.

Plaintiff’s motion for a settlement conference shall be denied. In the event that in his pretrial

statement defendant Cain indicates that a settlement conference might be helpful, the court will

schedule one. However, unless both parties believe one might be helpful in resolving this case, no

settlement conference will be set. In addition to addressing this issue in the pretrial statement, the

parties are free to communicate directly with one another on this issue.

This action is proceeding to trial on plaintiff’s claim that defendant Cain violated his rights

under the Eighth Amendment by acting with deliberate indifference to his serious medical needs.

The court does not have jurisdiction to issue an order that does not remedy this claim and the court

does not have jurisdiction over individuals who are not parties to this suit. Therefore, the court

cannot order CDC or its employees to provide plaintiff with law library access or priority status so

that plaintiff may access the law library. Zepeda v. United States Immigration Service, 753 F.2d

719, 727 (9th Cir. 1985). 

By this order, the court will direct the Clerk’s Office to send plaintiff a copy of Local Rule

16-281 so that plaintiff will be aware of what he must include in his pretrial statement, as well as a

copy of the Second Scheduling Order and a copy of the docket. Plaintiff must file his pretrial

statement within two weeks from the date of service of this order. By virtue of the issuance of this

order, a court deadline has been set and it has been the court’s experience that prison officials have

a system in place that will accommodate plaintiff when he has a court deadline. The court will also

direct the Clerk’s Office to send a copy of this order and the Second Scheduling Order to the

Case 1:02-cv-05712-NEW Document 88 Filed 12/15/05 Page 2 of 3
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

 Although plaintiff did not raise the issue in his filings, given that plaintiff was out on parole and is now

back in custody, it is possible that plaintiff no longer has the Second Scheduling Order in his possession and that

prison staff are unaware of the upcoming hearing and trial dates.

3

Litigation Office so staff are aware of the upcoming deadlines.1

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s motions for a settlement conference and for a court order relating to law

library access at DVI are DENIED;

2. The Clerk’s Office shall send plaintiff a copy of Local Rule 16-281, a copy of the

Second Scheduling Order, and a copy of the docket in this action;

3. Within fifteen (15) days from the date of service of this order, plaintiff shall file his

pretrial statement in compliance with the court’s order of August 11, 2005; and

4. The Clerk’s Office shall fax (1) a copy of this order, along with Local Rule 16-281,

the Second Scheduling Order, and the docket, to the Litigation Office at DVI for

delivery to plaintiff, and (2) a copy of this order and the Second Scheduling Order to

the Litigation Office for staff use.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 14, 2005 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:02-cv-05712-NEW Document 88 Filed 12/15/05 Page 3 of 3