Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_04-cv-01833/USCOURTS-casd-3_04-cv-01833-5/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

04cv1833

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALBERTO VERA JIMENEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

R. SAMBRANO, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Civil No. 04cv1833-L(PCL)

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’

EX PARTE APPLICATION TO

CONTINUE THE FINAL PRETRIAL

CONFERENCE

On June 16, 2008, Defendants filed an ex parte application seeking a continuance of the

final pretrial conference set on this court’s calendar for June 23, 2008. For the reasons which

follow, the ex parte application is DENIED.

The reason given for the continuance is that Defendants’ counsel will be on a prepaid

family vacation from June 22 through June 30, 2008 and that the arrangements for the vacation,

including the purchase of airline tickets, were made when the pretrial conference was scheduled

for May 23, 2008. By order filed May 21, 2008, the pretrial conference was continued to June

23, 2008. Since May 21, 2008 until now, Defense counsel has not informed the court of his need

to reschedule the pretrial conference to accommodate his vacation plans. Although he has

contacted chambers at least once on a matter relating to the pretrial conference during this time,

he has not brought the issue of the continuance to the court’s attention until now. On June 6,

2008, the court issued a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum to secure Plaintiff’s attendance in

Case 3:04-cv-01833-L-PCL Document 166 Filed 06/18/08 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

2 04cv1833

person at the pretrial conference. A notice of this writ was sent Defendants’ counsel via e-mail

on the same date, however, he waited for ten days, until only five business days prior to the

hearing date, to inform the court of his allegedly long-standing vacation plans. 

Because of the delay in making the request and the complications that would result from

having to recall the writ at this late date, the ex parte application for a continuance of the final

pretrial conference is DENIED. If Defendants’ counsel does not wish to attend the pretrial

conference, he may request his office to assign this case to another counsel for trial. To the

extent necessary or desirable, the court expects Defendants’ counsel and his office to fully

cooperate in the process of securing Plaintiff’s attendance in person at the pretrial conference on

June 23, 2008 at 11:00 a.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: June 18, 2008

M. James Lorenz

United States District Court Judge

HON. PETER C. LEWIS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

ALL PARTIES/COUNSEL

Case 3:04-cv-01833-L-PCL Document 166 Filed 06/18/08 Page 2 of 2