Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01247/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-01247-42/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

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CARLOS HENDON,

Plaintiff,

v.

I. BAROYA, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:05-cv-01247-SAB-PC

ORDER RE OBJECTIONS TO SEPTEMBER 

25, 2015 PRETRIAL STATMENT

(ECF Nos. 178, 181, 182)

On September 21, 2015, a pretrial confirmation hearing was held. On September 22, 

2015, a pretrial order was issued, setting the pretrial schedule for this case. At the hearing, the 

Court addressed the issue of Plaintiff’s failure to file a pretrial statement in compliance with the 

April 20, 2015, trial scheduling order. The September 22, 2015, pretrial order reflects Plaintiff’s 

pretrial statement submitted on March 9, 2015. Plaintiff indicated that he had submitted a 

pretrial statement for mailing. On September 25, 2015, Plaintiff filed a pretrial statement. (ECF 

No. 178.) On September 28, 2015, Defendants Baroya, Hoppe, Nguyet and Riedman filed 

objections to Plaintiff’s pretrial statement. (ECF No. 181.) On the same date, Defendant Fam 

joined in Defendants’ objections. (ECF No. 182.)

Plaintiff seeks to add the following undisputed facts:

1. Whether while on suicide precaution an inmate is provided with a suicide 

mattress.

Case 1:05-cv-01247-SAB Document 185 Filed 09/30/15 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

2. Whether Plaintiff sustained any injuries or pain from the conditions of 

confinement.

3. Whether Plaintiff sustained any damages from any alleged constitutional 

violations.

These facts are within the scope of issues to be determined at trial and therefore do not 

materially alter the September 22, 2015, pretrial order.

Plaintiff seeks to call inmate witnesses Cody Taylor and Billy Fells. As will be discussed 

further below, Plaintiff was properly served with the April 20, 2015, trial scheduling order and 

was therefore on notice that the deadline for filing motions for the attendance of incarcerated 

witnesses was July 14, 2015. Plaintiff failed to file any such motions. At the September 21, 

2015, pretrial confirmation hearing, the Court indicated that it would entertain the March 9, 

2015, motion for the attendance of an incarcerated witness. Defendants have until September 30, 

2015, to oppose the motion. In the March 9, 2015, motion, Plaintiff seeks only to introduce the 

testimony of inmate Billy Fells. The Court will not entertain any further motions for the 

attendance of incarcerated witnesses other than inmate Fells as his subsequent request is 

untimely pursuant to the Court’s April 20, 2015, trial scheduling order. 

In their objections, Defendants object to Plaintiff’s assertion that he did not have notice 

of the Court’s orders. In his September 25, 2015, pretrial statement, Plaintiff indicates that it is 

“improper to dismiss his complaint for his purported failure to file pretrial statement because 

court did not give him notice of requirement.” (ECF No. 178 at 8:15.19.) Plaintiff is advised 

that the order to show cause was discharged because the Court found good cause to do so. At the 

September 21, 2015, pretrial confirmation hearing, Plaintiff indicated that although he received 

the April 20. 2015, trial scheduling order, he did not believe it required him to file a pretrial 

statement. The Court made it clear at the hearing that Plaintiff was served with notice of the 

requirement to file a pretrial statement and all the other requirements of the April 20, 2015, trial 

scheduling order. The order to show cause was discharged on the ground that, at the hearing, 

Plaintiff indicated that he had submitted for mailing a pretrial statement. The Court also 

indicated that it would consider the March 9, 2015, motion for the attendance of incarcerated 

Case 1:05-cv-01247-SAB Document 185 Filed 09/30/15 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

witness, but that Plaintiff was not granted leave to request the attendance of any other 

incarcerated witnesses. There is no evidence, and the Court made no finding that, Plaintiff was 

not properly served with the April 20, 2015, trial scheduling order.

Defendants also object to Plaintiff’s expansion of the scope of his claims. In his 

September 25, 2015, pretrial statement, Plaintiff attempts to expand his claims through 

December 23, 2003, encompassing an additional eleven month period of time that has never been 

at issue. (ECF No. 178 at 2:2-5.) Defendants correctly object to this expansion of Plaintiff’s 

claims because it is not pled in the operative Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 18), thus 

depriving Defendants of fair notice of the claims to defend at trial. See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. 

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 545, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2). 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Court sustains Defendants’ objection that Plaintiff’s September 25, 2015, 

pretrial statement improperly defines and expands the scope of his claims.

2. The Court sustains Defendants’ objection that Plaintiff wrongly asserts that

he did not have notice of the April 20, 2015, trial scheduling order. 

3. The September 22, 2015, pretrial order stands as the final pretrial order

of the Court. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 29, 2015 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-01247-SAB Document 185 Filed 09/30/15 Page 3 of 3