Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05363/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05363-24/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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

)

MICHAEL GONZALES, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

A. PEREZ, et al., )

) 

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

Case No.: 1:03-cv-05363 LJO DLB PC 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

SECOND, THIRD and FOURTH

MOTIONS FOR CONTINUANCE

(Doc.150, 152 and 153)

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter is currently set for jury trial on September 8, 2008. On

August 18 and 21 2008, plaintiff filed motions for a continuance of the trial date. (Docs. 150, 152, and

153). Plaintiff states that he has recently filed an appeal concerning regarding a discovery order issued

in this action. (Docs. 150 and 152). Plaintiff further requests a continuance because defendants are

unable to produce a witness requested by plaintiff at trial. (Doc. 153).

“When a Notice of Appeal is defective in that it refers to a non-appealable interlocutory order,

it does not transfer jurisdiction to the appellate court, and so the ordinary rule that the district court

cannot act until the mandate has issued on the appeal does not apply.” Nascimento v. Dummer, 508 F.3d

905, 908 (9th Cir. 2007).

Case 1:03-cv-05363-LJO-DLB Document 154 Filed 08/25/08 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

U.S. District Court

 E. D. California 2

Discovery orders are generally interlocutory and not immediately appealable. United States v.

Ye, 436 F 3d. 1117, 1122 (9 Cir. 2006). The court does not find good cause to continue the trial date th

before plaintiff’s discovery appeal can be decided.

Plaintiff also requests a continuance due to the fact that defendants are unable to locate MTA

Maceil, whom plaintiff wishes to call as a witness at trial. On February 19 and 20, 2008, plaintiff filed

motions for the attendance of unincarcerated witnesses at trial, including MTA Maceil. (Doc. 95). On

February 27, 2008, the court advised plaintiff that he must submit a money order for the associated

travel expenses for each of his proposed witnesses. Plaintiff was advised that the money orders were

due no later than March 14, 2008. (Doc. 103). To date, plaintiff has not submitted any money order to

the court.

In the pre-trial order filed June 30, 2008, MTA Maceil is listed as a witness for defendants.

Defendants indicated that they would produce MTA Maceil at trial and therefore plaintiff would not be

required to submit the money order to secure his attendance. (Doc. 128). However, counsel for

defendants have since indicated that MTA Maceil has not been employed by CDCR since 2004 and that

his whereabouts are unknown. Defendantsstate that they therefore would not be producing this witness

at trial. (Doc. 135).

Granting plaintiff’s request for a continuance of this trial would be of little benefit since the

proposed witness cannot be located by either party. 

Accordingly, plaintiff’s motions for a continuance of the trial date, filed August 18 and 21, 2008,

are HEREBY DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 25, 2008 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3b142a UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05363-LJO-DLB Document 154 Filed 08/25/08 Page 2 of 2