Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00754/USCOURTS-caed-1_10-cv-00754-18/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

LAMONT SHEPARD,

Plaintiff,

v.

BASS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:10-cv-00754-LJO-BAM PC

ORDER REQUIRING DEFENDANT TO

PROVIDE ADDITIONAL BRIEFING ON

DEFENDANT’S APPLICATIONTOPOSTPONE

TRIAL

FOURTEEN DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Lamont Shepard (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Following resolution of the parties’

cross-motions for summary judgment, this action is now proceeding on Plaintiff’s complaint, filed

April 30, 2010, against Defendant Bass for excessive force in violation of the Eighth Amendment. 

(ECF No. 62.) This action is currently set for trial on December 11, 2012, before the undersigned. 

(ECF No. 63.) On August 22, 2012, Defendant filed an application to postpone the jury trial. (ECF

No. 73.) Plaintiff filed an opposition on September 4, 2012. (ECF No. 74.)

Defendant requests that the trial be postponed until after the first of the year because lead trial

counsel has the re-trial of an employment law action in Los Angeles Superior Court that is

anticipated to run from November 13, 2012, to December 12, 2012. Plaintiff argues that the trial is

not in conflict because Defendant has multiple attorneys that can try this action until lead counsel

is available to take over the trial, or can postpone the matter currently set in Los Angeles Superior

1

Case 1:10-cv-00754-LJO-BAM Document 76 Filed 09/17/12 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

Court. 

This Court allows counsel and parties to participate in the selection of trial dates, and

considers the trial dates to be serious and firm.

Defendant is ordered to file additional briefing in the form of declarations, addressing

whether the date setting for the retrial had counsel’s input, whether counsel brought the conflict to

the state court’s attention (and if so, in what form), and whether other attorneys in the firm are

available to act as counsel in this action. The briefing shall include declarations from each attorney

in the firm addressing their availability. Additionally, defense counsel is to address the reasons that

the action in Los Angeles Superior Court is anticipated to actually go to trial on or near the date

scheduled.

Accordingly, within fourteen days from the date of service of this order, Defendant is to file

additional briefing as described in this order. Failure to do so will result in an immediate denial of

the motion to continue.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 14, 2012 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Case 1:10-cv-00754-LJO-BAM Document 76 Filed 09/17/12 Page 2 of 2