Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01472/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01472-31/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

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

Plaintiff Cornell Brown is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil 

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This action currently proceeds on Plaintiff’s claims against 

Defendant Correctional Officer Harris for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment. All 

parties have consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction. (ECF Nos. 5, 81.) 

Under the Amended Second Scheduling Order, this matter is set for a jury trial beginning on 

March 28, 2017, and a telephonic pretrial hearing on January 18, 2017. (ECF No. 96.) Plaintiff was 

required to serve and file a pretrial statement in accordance with that Order by January 3, 2017, and 

Defendant’s pretrial statement is due by January 10, 2017. 

Currently before the Court is Defendant’s motion to amend the Amended Second Scheduling 

Order to vacate the current pretrial statement deadlines. (ECF No. 99.) Defendant argues that the 

CORNELL BROWN,

 Plaintiff,

v.

R. HARRIS, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:12-cv-01472-BAM (PC)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT HARRIS’S 

MOTION TO MODIFY AMENDED SECOND 

SCHEDULING ORDER AND EX PARTE 

APPLICATION TO HEAR MOTION ON 

SHORTENED TIME

Plaintiff’s Amended Pretrial Statement Due:

January 20, 2017

Case 1:12-cv-01472-BAM Document 100 Filed 01/10/17 Page 1 of 3
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

Plaintiff’s pretrial statement is so inadequate that Defendant cannot properly prepare a pretrial 

statement in response, including because Plaintiff left several matters for his counsel to determine, 

although no counsel of record has appeared on Plaintiff’s behalf. Therefore, Defendant asserts that 

Plaintiff should be ordered to file a statement that adequately complies with Local Rule 281(b), and 

Defendant’s statement should be due ten days after Plaintiff files his amended pretrial statement. 

Defendant suggests the January 18, 2017 pretrial hearing remain on calendar to confirm Plaintiff’s 

readiness for trial and the status of his representation, and that the instant motion be ruled upon prior 

to that hearing.

1

The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s pretrial statement and finds that it does not comply with 

Local Rule 281 in several critical respects. As Defendant notes, Plaintiff’s pretrial statement is only

about four pages long, and his filing otherwise mostly consists of attachments that appear to be some 

portion of Plaintiff’s proposed trial exhibits. Plaintiff’s undisputed and disputed fact descriptions each 

consist of one sentence, and the Court is therefore not certain whether these sections are complete. No 

anticipated disputed evidentiary issues are noted. (ECF No. 98.)

More importantly, Plaintiff does not list his expected witnesses, and instead states that he has 

obtained legal counsel who will take over “all remaining matters.” (Id. at 3.) Although Plaintiff 

indicates that he has obtained counsel as of December 27, 2016 and gives a name and phone number

for counsel, no counsel has yet filed any appearance in this action for Plaintiff. Nor does the 

anticipated appearance of counsel excuse Plaintiff from his obligation to comply with this Court’s 

orders and the local rules. Plaintiff also refers to what his anticipated counsel “will decide” instead of 

setting forth his positions on any stipulations, further discovery or motions (other than to state that he 

anticipates a motion to extend the time for trial), whether he will request any amendments, any 

anticipated settlement negotiations or need for a settlement conference, and whether he will seek an 

impartial expert witness or witnesses. (Id. at 3-4.) The incompleteness of Plaintiff’s pretrial statement 

prevents Defendant and the Court from adequately preparing for trial in this matter. 

 

1 Defendant also suggests that Plaintiff’s pretrial statement was filed and served late, as it was not entered onto 

the docket until January 6, 2017. (ECF No. 98). However, the proof of service attached to Plaintiff’s pretrial 

statement indicates it was provided to prison officials for mailing to the Court and defense counsel on January 

2, 2017, which was within the applicable deadline. (Id. at 17-18.)

Case 1:12-cv-01472-BAM Document 100 Filed 01/10/17 Page 2 of 3
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

Good cause appearing, Defendant’s motion to modify the amended second scheduling order 

and ex parte application to hear the motion on shortened time (ECF No. 99), are GRANTED. The 

pretrial statement deadlines set forth in the Court’s amended second scheduling order are vacated, and 

the Court HEREBY ORDERS as follows:

1. Plaintiff shall file and serve an amended pretrial statement that adequately complies 

with Local Rule 281(b) on or before January 20, 2017;

2. Defendant shall file a pretrial statement within ten (10) days after Plaintiff files and 

serves his amended pretrial statement; and

3. Plaintiff is warned that his failure to comply with this order shall result in 

dismissal of this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 9, 2017 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01472-BAM Document 100 Filed 01/10/17 Page 3 of 3