Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02243/USCOURTS-caed-2_03-cv-02243-9/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT H. NESBITT, JR.,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-03-2243 MCE DAD P

vs.

NEIL WAKABAYASHI, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

On October 11, 2005, plaintiff was ordered to show cause for his failure to file

and serve his pretrial statement on or before September 30, 2005, as required by the court’s order

filed March 21, 2005. On October 14, 2005, the court received plaintiff’s untimely and deficient

pretrial statement. Plaintiff subsequently filed a response to the order to show cause.

Plaintiff asserts that he filed his pretrial statement by placing it in the mail on

October 10, 2005, pursuant to his understanding of Local Rule 16-281(a)(1) and the court’s order

and findings and recommendations filed August 17, 2005. Plaintiff declares that he believed that

“‘not less than ten (10) court days prior to the date set by the court for holding of the final pretrial conference,’” he was required to “‘personally serve and file in duplicate a pre-trial

statement.’” Plaintiff states that many of his legal papers, including his copy of the court’s

March 21, 2005 order, have been stored.

Case 2:03-cv-02243-MCE -DAD Document 460 Filed 11/15/05 Page 1 of 5
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

2

Defendants contend that plaintiff has not shown good cause why sanctions should

not be imposed for his failure to timely file his pretrial statement. Defendants point out that

plaintiff’s pretrial statement was late even under the requirements of Local Rule 16-281(a)(1). 

Defendants request that, if the court is not inclined to dismiss this case as a sanction, the court

instead sanction plaintiff by postponing trial until plaintiff has been sentenced and transferred to

a penal institution. Defendants indicate that plaintiff is scheduled to appear in state court for

sentencing on December 6, 2005.

A scheduling order was issued in this action on June 10, 2004. That order has not

been vacated and remains in effect except as expressly modified by subsequent orders. On

March 21, 2005, the court filed an order that moved jury trial to January 18, 2006, and pretrial

conference to October 21, 2005. Plaintiff was ordered to file and serve his pretrial statement on

or before September 30, 2005. Pursuant to the initial scheduling order, any motions for

attendance of witnesses at trial were to be filed with plaintiff’s pretrial statement. The August

17, 2005 order and findings and recommendations cited by plaintiff did not set any dates but

merely noted the fact that pretrial conference was set for October 21, 2005. 

Plaintiff indicates that he stored old legal paperwork and kept in his possession

only the papers he felt would be pertinent. Plaintiff erred in failing to perceive the pertinence of

the June 10, 2004 scheduling order and the March 21, 2005 order modifying the scheduling

order. Plaintiff also erred in calculating the due date of his pretrial statement pursuant to the rule

he believed to be applicable. Local Rule 16-281(a) provides that a pretrial statement served by

any means other than personal delivery must be served no later than thirteen court days and filed

no later than ten court days prior to the pretrial conference. The term “court days” refers to days

on which the court is open and does not include Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays; October 10,

2005, was a federal holiday. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a). In order to comply with Local Rule 16-

281(a) for a pretrial conference set for October 21, 2005, plaintiff would have been required to

serve his pretrial statement by placing it in the mail to defendants’ counsel on or before October

Case 2:03-cv-02243-MCE -DAD Document 460 Filed 11/15/05 Page 2 of 5
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

3

3, 2005, and, pursuant to the prisoner mailbox rule, to file the pretrial statement with the court by

delivering it to jail officials for mailing on or before October 6, 2005. Plaintiff’s proof of service

reflects that his pretrial statement was placed in the mail to the court and defendants’ counsel on

October 10, 2005.

Despite plaintiff’s errors in judgment and computation, the court finds it

inappropriate to recommend that this action be dismissed as a sanction. Upon consideration of

plaintiff’s response to the order to show cause, as well as plaintiff’s pro se status and the

conditions of his confinement, the undersigned will discharge the order to show cause and permit

plaintiff to proceed. Plaintiff will be required to file and serve an amended pretrial statement,

and new dates will be set for defendants’ pretrial statement and for pretrial conference. Trial will

be postponed.

Plaintiff is advised that the undersigned will issue a Pretrial Order based on the

information provided by the parties in their pretrial statements. The Pretrial Order will supersede

the parties’ pleadings and will encompass, among other matters, all claims and factual issues to

be resolved at trial, all relief that may be obtained by any party, all witnesses who may be called

at trial, all exhibits that may be offered at trial, and all discovery documents that may be used at

trial. The Pretrial Order will set deadlines for exchanging exhibits, for objecting to exhibits, and

for filing trial briefs, proposed voir dire questions, proposed jury instructions, and motions in

limine. Some deadlines will be set in terms of court days, while others will be set in terms of

calendar days. Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to calculate deadlines correctly and comply with

them may have serious consequences.

Turning to plaintiff’s untimely pretrial statement, the court finds the document to

be deficient in several respects. By the scheduling order, plaintiff was informed that he must be

prepared, at the time of trial, to introduce evidence to prove each of the alleged facts that support

the claims raised in his lawsuit. Plaintiff was advised that it is his responsibility to produce all of

the evidence needed to prove his case. Plaintiff’s pretrial statement should list all undisputed

Case 2:03-cv-02243-MCE -DAD Document 460 Filed 11/15/05 Page 3 of 5
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

1

 It may be helpful to phrase disputed factual issues in this manner: (1) whether Cathleen

Bidou had an argument with inmate Robinson on [date]; (2) whether Cathleen Bidou told inmate

Robinson on [date] that she would send Matt Bidou to take care of him that night; etc.

4

facts relevant to his remaining claims and all disputed factual issues that must be proved by

testimony or exhibits in order to persuade the jury that each remaining defendant violated

plaintiff’s rights. Plaintiff’s brief narrative of undisputed facts and slightly longer narrative of

disputed factual issues do not appear to include all facts required to support the claims raised in

this lawsuit. Plaintiff must file an amended pretrial statement in which he enumerates each

undisputed fact and each disputed factual issue.1

Plaintiff’s pretrial statement is also deficient with regard to witnesses. The court’s

scheduling order informed plaintiff that if he wants to call witnesses to testify at trial he must

follow the procedures set forth in the scheduling order. Plaintiff was provided with three pages

of information concerning the procedures for obtaining attendance of incarcerated witnesses who

agree to testify voluntarily, incarcerated witnesses who do not agree to testify voluntarily,

unincarcerated witnesses who agree to testify voluntarily, and unincarcerated witnesses who do

not agree to testify voluntarily. Plaintiff was directed to file and serve his pretrial statement with

any motions necessary to obtain the attendance of witnesses at trial. Plaintiff’s pretrial statement

lists nine inmate witnesses and indicates that the addresses for seven are unknown. Plaintiff did

not file a motion for attendance of these witnesses at trial. Plaintiff’s amended pretrial statement

must be accompanied by a motion for attendance of incarcerated witnesses at trial. Plaintiff must

provide the declarations required by the scheduling order. The court cannot issue a writ of

habeas corpus ad testificandum for an incarcerated witness whose address is unknown. Plaintiff

also lists eleven guards and thirteen “others” who are not incarcerated witnesses. As explained in

the scheduling order, plaintiff must make his own arrangements with unincarcerated witnesses

who are willing to testify voluntarily, and plaintiff must submit a subpoena for service on each

unincarcerated witness who is not willing to testify voluntarily. Plaintiff is advised that the

Case 2:03-cv-02243-MCE -DAD Document 460 Filed 11/15/05 Page 4 of 5
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

5

United States Marshal cannot serve a subpoena on a witness whose address is unknown. Plaintiff

is not required to subpoena the defendants and may list them as witnesses he intends to call.

Finally, plaintiff’s pretrial statement includes various requests and motions. 

Discovery is closed, as is the time for filing pretrial motions not related to trial. Plaintiff’s

speculation about defendants’ witnesses and exhibits is premature, as defendants have not yet

filed a pretrial statement. Any motion that may be properly made at this time must be filed and

served as a separate document supported by a memorandum of points and authorities and

appropriate evidence that demonstrates the appropriateness of bringing the motion at this time. 

Motions and requests included in the amended pretrial statement will be denied or disregarded.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The court’s October 11, 2005 order to show cause is discharged;

2. Plaintiff shall file and serve an amended pretrial statement, along with any

motions necessary to obtain the attendance of witnesses at trial, on or before March 3, 2006;

3. Defendants shall file and serve their pretrial statement on or before March 17,

2006;

4. Pretrial conference (as described in Local Rule 16-282) is re-set for March 24,

2006, before the magistrate judge; and

5. Jury trial before the Honorable Morrison C. England, Jr. on January 18, 2006,

is vacated and will be re-set in the pretrial order.

DATED: November 14, 2005.

DAD:13

nesb2243.oscdch

Case 2:03-cv-02243-MCE -DAD Document 460 Filed 11/15/05 Page 5 of 5