Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00736/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-00736-16/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 Balcagon for excessive force in 

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

protect in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.1

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 

 

1

Defendant Balcagon was sued erroneously as “Angela Badagon.” Defendant Harder was sued erroneously as “Charlotte 

Havder.” 

ARCHIE CRANFORD,

 Plaintiff,

v.

ANGELA BADAGON, et al., 

Defendants.

_____________________________________

CONSOLIDATED ACTION

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

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

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR 

JURY TRIAL AS PREMATURE

(ECF No. 60)

Case 1:11-cv-00736-BAM Document 61 Filed 04/29/14 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

that order, the deadline to complete discovery regarding the claim against Defendants Perryman and 

Harder was March 22, 2014, and the deadline to file dispositive motions was April 24, 2014. 

On April 23, 2014, Defendants Perryman and Harder filed a motion for summary judgment. 

(ECF No. 59.) Thereafter, on April 28, 2014, Plaintiff filed the instant motion requesting that the 

court set this matter for a jury trial.2 (ECF No. 60.) 

Plaintiff’s motion is premature. The Court will not set a jury trial in this matter until after 

resolution of the pending motion for summary judgment. At that time, any remaining claims and 

defendants in this action will be finalized and the matter may be set for trial. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s 

motion to set a jury trial is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 29, 2014 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

 

2

 As Plaintiff’s motion is premature and Defendants will not be prejudiced, the Court finds a response to Plaintiff’s motion 

unnecessary. Local Rule 230(l). 

Case 1:11-cv-00736-BAM Document 61 Filed 04/29/14 Page 2 of 2