Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00754/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00754-24/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAMONT SHEPARD,

Plaintiff,

v.

BASS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00754-LJO-BAM PC

ORDER DISREGARDING PLAINTIFF’S

NOTICE TO THE COURT

(ECF No. 85)

Plaintiff Lamont Shepard (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Following resolution of the parties’

cross-motions for summary judgment, this action is now proceeding on Plaintiff’s complaint, filed

April 30, 2010, against Defendant Bass for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 

On August 22, 2012, Defendants filed a motion to continue the trial set for December 11, 2012, until

after the first of the year. The Court ordered further briefing by Defendants and set a telephonic

conference on October 9, 2012. After considering the parties filings, the telephonic conference was

vacated and trial in this action was continued to January 29, 2013, at 8:30 a..m. before the

undersigned. On October 12, 2012, Plaintiff filed a notice to the court complaining that Defendants

and California State Prison, Corcoran were not complying with the order of the Court.

Plaintiff states that prison officials did not present him for the legal call on October 9, 2012,

and he was informed that the conference call had been cancelled. Plaintiff argues that there is no

reason to continue the trial as requested by Defendants. 

Since the October 9, 2012, hearing was cancelled, prison official did not fail to comply with

1

Case 1:10-cv-00754-LJO-BAM Document 86 Filed 10/15/12 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

a court order by not presenting Plaintiff for a conference call. Additionally, the Court has considered

the moving papers and has granted Defendants’ motion to continue the trial. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s notice, filed October 12, 2012, shall be DISREGARDED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 15, 2012 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Case 1:10-cv-00754-LJO-BAM Document 86 Filed 10/15/12 Page 2 of 2