Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00736/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00736-9/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

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 December 17, 2013, the court 

consolidated Cranford v. Badagon, 1:11-cv-00736 LJO BAM, with Cranford v. Perryman, et al., 1:13-

cv-00906 LJO BAM. This action now proceeds against Defendant Badagon for excessive force in 

violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and against Defendants Perryman and Havder for failure to 

protect in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. 

Due to the consolidation, on December 18, 2013, the Court vacated the Second Scheduling 

Order, including the trial date, and issued an Amended Discovery and Scheduling Order. Pursuant to 

that order, the deadline to file an unenumerated Rule 12(b) motion regarding the claim against 

Defendants Perryman and Havder was December 22, 2013, the deadline to complete discovery 

ARCHIE CRANFORD,

 Plaintiff,

v.

ANGELA BADAGON, et al.

Defendants.

_____________________________________

CONSOLIDATED ACTION

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:11-cv-00736 -LJO-BAM

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SECOND 

TRIAL BY JURY AND CONFERENCE DATE

AS PREMATURE

(ECF No. 42)

Case 1:11-cv-00736-BAM Document 43 Filed 02/12/14 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

regarding the claim against Defendants Perryman and Havder is March 22, 2014, and the dispositive 

motion deadline for all claims in this action is April 24, 2014. (ECF No. 41.)

On February 10, 2014, Plaintiff filed the instant motion requesting that the Court set a second 

trial date, along with a conference date to determine Plaintiff’s readiness for trial. (ECF No. 42.) 

Plaintiff’s request is premature. As noted above, discovery is ongoing regarding the claim against 

Defendants Perryman and Havder and the dispositive motion deadline has not yet passed. The Court 

will not set a trial date until after completion of all discovery and resolution of any dispositive 

motions. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for a second trial date is DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 12, 2014 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-00736-BAM Document 43 Filed 02/12/14 Page 2 of 2