Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01625/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01625-4/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

FEDERICO HERNANDEZ,

Plaintiff,

v.

M. HERNANDEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

CASE NO. 1:13-cv-1625-AWI-MJS (PC)

ORDER (1) REQUIRING DEFENDANTS 

TO COMPLY WITH COURT ORDER OR 

SHOW CAUSE WHY THEY SHOULD NOT 

BE HELD IN CONTEMPT (ECF No. 32) 

AND (2) GRANTING IN PART 

PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION 

OF TIME (ECF No. 33)

CLERK OF COURT TO FAX COPY OF 

THIS ORDER AND ECF DOCUMENT

NO. 32 TO LITIGATION COORDINATOR 

AT KERN VALLEY STATE PRISON

Telephonic Scheduling Conference:

November 20, 2014 at 1:30 p.m.

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

rights action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. This action proceeds on Plaintiff’s 

Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against Defendants Hernandez, Zambrano, 

Clark, Rodriguez, and Martin. (ECF Nos. 10, 16.) 

On September 12, 2014, the Court issued a preliminary discovery and scheduling 

order requiring the parties to submit, by October 22, 2014, a completed form reflecting 

Case 1:13-cv-01625-MJS Document 35 Filed 10/26/14 Page 1 of 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

2

their respective preferences with regard to various expedited litigation options. A 

telephonic hearing to discuss the parties’ preferences was set for November 6, 2014.

On October 20, 2014, Plaintiff filed a motion for a sixty day extension of time, 

stating that his copy of the Court’s order had been destroyed or damaged while he was 

in the hospital. (ECF No. 33.) Plaintiff also states that he is right handed and has a 

medical issue that makes it difficult for him to write. Plaintiff asks that he be sent an 

additional copy of the Court’s order. On October 22, 2014, Plaintiff filed a declaration 

essentially reiterating these requests. (ECF No. 34.)

Defendants have not responded to the Court’s preliminary discovery and 

scheduling order, filed their preferences as ordered by the Court, or requested an 

extension of time to do so.

The purpose of the preliminary scheduling order and telephonic conference is to 

enable the parties and the Court to discuss various ways litigation of this case might be 

simplified and the case resolved more quickly. The parties were ordered to indicate their 

preferences simply by placing their initials next to the options listed. Responding does 

not require extensive writing or legal research.1In light of the preliminary nature of the 

conference and its limited scope, a sixty days extension of time is not warranted. Indeed, 

such a lengthy extension would defeat the purpose of the conference, which is to 

expedite resolution of the case. 

However, the November 6, 2014 conference likely will be unproductive given the 

lack of response from either party. Accordingly, the Court will move the conference to 

November 20, 2014. The Court directs the Clerk of the Court to send Plaintiff an 

additional copy of the Court’s preliminary discovery and scheduling order (ECF No. 32), 

and also to fax same to the Litigation Coordinator at Plaintiff’s institution. The Court 

requests that the Litigation Coordinator provide Plaintiff with a copy of the order. Plaintiff 

shall record his preferences on Attachment B of the order and file same with the Court 

on or before November 12, 2014. Defendants shall immediately, but in no event later 

 

1

Indeed, it requires far, far less writing than the motion and declaration submitted by Plaintiff. 

Case 1:13-cv-01625-MJS Document 35 Filed 10/26/14 Page 2 of 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

3

than October 31, 2014, file a completed Attachment B completed or show cause why 

they should not be held in contempt for failing to obey the Court’s prior order.

Based on the foregoing, the Court HEREBY ORDERS as follows:

1. Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time (ECF No. 33) is GRANTED IN PART as 

follows:

a. The Clerk’s Office is directed to send Plaintiff a copy of the Court’s 

preliminary discovery and scheduling order (ECF No. 32);

b. Plaintiff shall record his preferences on Attachment B of the order and 

return and file same by November 12, 2014;

c. The initial scheduling conference, currently scheduled for November 6, 

2014, is moved to November 20, 2014 at 1:30 p.m.;

d. Counsel for Defendants is required to arrange for the participation of 

Plaintiff in the telephonic scheduling conference; 

2. Defendants are HEREBY ORDERED to submit their completed Attachment B, 

as required by the Court’s preliminary discovery and scheduling order (ECF 

No. 32) by Friday, October 31, 2014, or to show cause why they should not 

be held in contempt; and

3. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to fax a copy of this Order and the 

Court’s preliminary discovery and scheduling order (ECF No. 32) to the 

Litigation Coordinator, Kern Valley State Prison.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: October 24, 2014 /s/Michael J. Seng 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01625-MJS Document 35 Filed 10/26/14 Page 3 of 3