Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01022/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01022-61/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

TROAS V. BARNETT,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARTIN GAMBOA, ANGEL DURAN, 

and MANUEL TORRES,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:05-cv–01022-BAM PC

ORDER REGARDING PLAINTIFF’S

OBJECTIONS TO COURT ORDER DENYING

PROCEDURES FOR THE IMPANELMENT OF

JURY AND TO THE PROVIDING OF

STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS THE DAY

OF TRIAL

(ECF Nos. 256)

Plaintiff Troas V. Barnett 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 is proceeding against Defendants

Martin Gamboa, Angel Duran and Manuel Torres for the use of excessive force, and Defendant

Torres for failure to intervene in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The matter is currently set for

trial on January 22, 2012. 

On December 17, 2012, Plaintiff filed a request for courtroom deputy to provide the

procedures utilized by the court in the impanelment of the jury. (ECF Nos. 219, 220.) On December

19, 2012, Plaintiff filed a request for the court to provide assistance in obtaining standard jury

instructions. (ECF No. 218.) 

On December 26, 2012, the Court denied Plaintiff’s motions. In so doing, the Court notified

Plaintiff that (1) the Court would explain the procedures used to impanel the jury on the day of trial;

and (2) the Court would provide jury instructions to Plaintiff on the morning of trial for his review. 

(ECF No. 223.) 

1

Case 1:05-cv-01022-BAM Document 268 Filed 01/17/13 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

On January14, 2013, Plaintiff filed objections to the Court’s order. (ECF No. 256.) Plaintiff

contends that he is unfamiliar with the procedures used to impanel a jury and that he has filed Ninth

Circuit Model Jury Instructions that should be used at trial. 

Plaintiff’s objections areDISREGARDED. At the motions in limine hearing held on January

15, 2013, the Court explained the process for impanelment of the jury. The Court will review this

process again with the parties before the start of trial on January 22, 2013. As to proposed jury

instructions, the Court has received proposed jury instructions from Plaintiff and from Defendants. 

These instructions will be considered by the Court prior to trial. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 17, 2013 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe 

10c20k UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

2

Case 1:05-cv-01022-BAM Document 268 Filed 01/17/13 Page 2 of 2