Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00736/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00736-24/pdf.json

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

---

1

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

ARCHIE CRANFORD,

Plaintiff,

 v.

ANGELA BADAGON, et al.,

 Defendants.

CONSOLIDATED ACTION

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:11-cv-00736-LJO-BAM 

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S 

REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO 

FILE PRETRIAL STATEMENT

(ECF No. 95)

SEVEN-DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Archie Cranford (“Plaintiff”) is a civil detainee proceeding pro se and in forma 

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On January 5, 2015, the Court 

granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment and directed entry of judgment in favor of 

Defendants Perryman and Harder. This action now proceeds on Plaintiff’s claim against 

Defendant Balcagon (erroneously sued as Badagon) for excessive force in violation of the 

Fourteenth Amendment. (ECF No. 77.) 

On January 14, 2015, the Court issued a Second Scheduling Order. Pursuant to that 

order, Plaintiff’s pretrial statement was due on or before July 9, 2015, and Defendant’s pretrial 

statement was due on before July 23, 2015. (ECF No. 79.) 

Plaintiff filed a pretrial statement that did not conform to the requirements of Local Rule 

281. Therefore, on July 16, 2015, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file a pretrial statement that 

Case 1:11-cv-00736-BAM Document 96 Filed 07/24/15 Page 1 of 2
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

complies with Local Rule 281(b) within fourteen days. (ECF No. 94.) Plaintiff’s pretrial 

statement is due on or before August 3, 2015. 

On July 23, 2015, Defendant filed the instant request to file her pretrial statement 14 days 

after Plaintiff submits his statement. (ECF No. 95.) 

The Court finds no basis to grant the requested extension of time. First, Defendant does 

not require Plaintiff’s pretrial statement in order to file her own statement. Second, a telephonic 

trial confirmation hearing is set for August 6, 2015. Defendant’s request would allow the filing 

of pretrial statement after the trial confirmation hearing. The Court will not continue the 

telephonic trial confirmation to await Defendant’s pretrial statement. Third, and finally, 

Defendant has not presented good cause for the requested extension of time. 

Accordingly, Defendant’s request for an extension of time to file her pretrial statement is 

HEREBY DENIED. Defendant shall file her pretrial statement within seven (7) days of the date 

of this order. Failure to comply with this Order will result in the dismissal of this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 24, 2015 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 

Case 1:11-cv-00736-BAM Document 96 Filed 07/24/15 Page 2 of 2