Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05123/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05123-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GUSTAVO YANEZ, )

 )

Plaintiff, )

)

)

v. )

)

CONNIE SELLERS; D.O. HELMICK, )

COMMISSIONER, CALIFORNIA )

HIGHWAY PATROL; MACK )

WIMBISH, KERN COUNTY )

SHERIFF/CORONER; EDWARD R. )

JAGELS, KERN COUNTY DISTRICT )

ATTORNEY, and Does 1 through 40, )

inclusive, )

)

Defendants. )

)

____________________________________)

CIV F 03-5123 AWI TAG

ORDER VACATING

HEARING ON MOTIONS IN

LIMINE, PRE-TRIAL DATES,

AND TRIAL DATE

Currently, trial in this matter is set for November 29, 2005, and the hearing on motions in

in limine is set for November 21, 2005. On November 17, 2005, Plaintiff filed a motion to 

continue the trial date for three weeks. The motion is essentially a declaration from Plaintiff’s

counsel indicating that, due to unforseen circumstances and state court trials, he will not be

available for trial in this matter. 

In particular, the declaration indicates that a civil trial in Stockton, California, in which he

is counsel, that was originally estimated to last eight days and end on October 23, 2005, is still

proceeding due to a number of unforseen occurrences. The Stockton case appears likely to

Case 1:03-cv-05123-AWI -TAG Document 127 Filed 11/18/05 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

continue until at least November 23, 2005. 

However, Plaintiff’s counsel is also defense counsel in a criminal case in Contra Costa,

County California. Plaintiff’s counsel indicates that his client faces a sentence of 25 years to life

due to California’s “three strikes” law. The criminal case has been pending for 14 months and

Plaintiff’s counsel does not foresee a plea bargain being reached. The original trial date in the

criminal matter was November 7, 2005, but has been continued twice due to Plaintiff’s Stockton

case. The current trial setting is November 21, 2005. The last date on Plaintiff’s client’s time

waiver is November 23, 2005. Plaintiff’s counsel indicated in his motion that there was a 

possibility that a motion to strike may facilitate a plea, depending on the ruling. Counsel has

since informed the Court that no progress was able to be made.

Plaintiff’s counsel has contacted Defendant, and Defendant has filed a notice of nonopposition to the motion for continuance. Plaintiff requested a three week continuance, but

Defendant has requested that the trial be reset for sometime in February or March 2006.

After considering the motion/declaration of Plaintiff’s counsel and the notice of nonopposition by Defendant, a continuance is appropriate.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Continuance is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part;

2. The November 21, 2005, hearing date on motions in limine is VACATED;

3. The November 29, 2005, trial date and the associated pre-trial dates and deadlines

are VACATED;

4. A status conference will be held on December 5, 2005, at 2:30 p.m., at which time

a new trial date will be set. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 17, 2005 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05123-AWI -TAG Document 127 Filed 11/18/05 Page 2 of 2