Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-05343/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-05343-24/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

United States District Court

Northern District of California

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

STEVE DALE PERCELLE,

Plaintiff,

v.

STEVEN PEARSON, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 12-cv-05343-TEH 

ORDER RESCHEDULING TRIAL; 

RESETTING DEADLINES

The trial in this case was scheduled for November 3, 2015. On November 19, 2015, 

during the pretrial conference, it became clear to the Court based on the parties’ failure to 

timely meet and confer as ordered, the disjointed 91 pages of pretrial documents (not 

including motions in limine), and verbose oral argument, that the parties were not prepared 

to begin an orderly trial within two weeks. 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the parties shall meet and confer on a new trial 

date and shall discuss their proposed dates with this Court’s courtroom deputy. Once the 

parties agree on a date that is available on the Court’s calendar, the Court will issue an 

order setting the new trial date and a new pretrial conference date. 

The parties may not submit any new motions in limine, as the filing deadline had 

passed prior to the pre-trial conference. The parties may submit outstanding oppositions to 

existing motions in limine, but must do so no later than November 26, 2015. 

The only remaining cause of action in this case is a First Amendment Retaliation 

claim within the prison context. The elements of the cause of action are as follows: 

(1) That Defendant took some adverse action against Plaintiff

(2) Because of 

(3) Plaintiff’s protected conduct;

(4) Such action chilled the exercise of Plaintiff’s First Amendment rights; and 

(5) The action did not reasonably advance a legitimate correctional goal.

Case 3:12-cv-05343-TEH Document 308 Filed 11/19/15 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

Northern District of California

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

With only these elements in mind, the parties shall submit a revised joint pretrial 

conference statement no later than 10 calendar days before the new pretrial conference

date, as determined by the parties’ agreement. The contents of the revised statement shall 

adhere to the Order for Pretrial Preparation (Docket No. 168), with the following 

exception: 

The parties’ witness lists must contain an explanation outlining (1) the matters to 

which each witness will testify, and (2) precisely how such testimony relates to one or 

more of the elements of a First Amendment Retaliation claim. 

The Court reminds the parties that the resetting of dates and deadlines does not give 

the parties a second bite at the apple. There shall be no new witnesses, exhibits or other 

evidence in the revised joint pretrial statement, but rather the revision shall serve to clean 

up and refocus the parties on the actual issues at bar. The Court will only find evidence 

relevant under Federal Rule of Evidence 401 if it relates to the cause of action at issue. 

Furthermore, the Court will liberally apply Federal Rule of Evidence 403 to ensure 

that even relevant evidence will not be admitted if it will confuse the issues, mislead the 

jury, needlessly present cumulative evidence or otherwise waste the Court’s time.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 11/19/15 _____________________________________ 

THELTON E. HENDERSON 

United States District Judge

Case 3:12-cv-05343-TEH Document 308 Filed 11/19/15 Page 2 of 2